Ask a yes/no question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return contract (decision, probability of yes, 'uncertain') plus the escalation semantics. It does not describe determinism, latency, or whether the call has side effects, but the key behavioral trait — defer to the user on uncertainty — is explicit.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose with examples, return values, then the escalation rule. Front-loaded and free of filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the three returned fields. With threshold and margin fully documented in the schema, the only remaining gap is guidance on choosing threshold/margin values, which is minor.

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 100%, so every parameter including threshold and margin is already documented in the schema with its meaning and bounds. The description adds no syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Decide one yes/no question') and immediately grounds it with two concrete examples drawn from plausible agent contexts. The yes/no framing implicitly distinguishes it from the ask_choice sibling without needing to name it.

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?

Gives a clear conditional rule: 'When uncertain is true, ask the user instead of acting.' This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to avoid acting on a low-confidence decision. It stops short of naming when to prefer this tool over ask_choice or evaluate_rules.

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