ask

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the substantive consequence behind those flags — 'Messages enter the account's real conversation' — which tells the agent that every ask leaves a visible turn in real state. 'Never creates or renames bots' further constrains blast radius. It does not describe what happens to the turn if wait_seconds expires, leaving that to the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the two behavioral constraints front-loaded before the routing hint. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 shape needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; what remains genuinely useful — scope, real-conversation side effect, and the check routing — is all present. A brief note on interrupt as the abort path would close the last gap.

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 coverage is 67% and already documents agent (exact existing name, omissible) and wait_seconds (max wait, 0 returns a snapshot). The description adds meaning the schema lacks for the undocumented message parameter: 'self-contained' signals no conversational carry-over and 'one task' signals no batching in a single call.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Send one self-contained task to an existing Grok Bot') and immediately bounds scope with 'Never creates or renames bots,' which separates it from the listing/creation sibling. The 'one ... task' phrasing also signals a single dispatch per call, so the agent can tell it apart from check without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the polling case away: 'running means use check, not another ask' names both the alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not cover when to prefer interrupt, or when to omit the agent versus specifying one, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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