ask_followup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether this is a read-only lookup or an expensive model-backed query, whether it can fail on unknown insight_ids, or whether there is any rate/cost implication. The only behavioral hint is the phrase 'in this session', implying session-scoped state, which is useful but thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is a single short fragment with no padding, so there is nothing to trim. But brevity here comes from under-specification rather than precision – it omits the verb and any operational detail the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the source of insight_id and the tool's execution characteristics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never clarifies that insight_id is an identifier for a previously produced insight (or where to get one), nor what form the question should take. At most, 'an insight produced in this session' weakly implies the provenance of insight_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment conveys intent – posing a follow-up question about an insight already produced in the session – which distinguishes it from siblings like search_research or analyze_news. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states the action (ask/submit/generate an answer) or what the tool actually does with the question.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools, and no prerequisites stated beyond the implied 'insight produced in this session'. Nothing tells the agent whether the insight_id must come from a prior call in the same session or how to obtain it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.