Ask a follow-up

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 meaningful behavior: only the answer is metered at the API rate, no re-search is performed, and it works on searches started via API or MCP. It does not explain what happens if the target search is not yet completed or how the server-side wait/resume behaves beyond the schema's own note.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by cost rationale and examples. Minor redundancy between 'without searching again' and 'Much cheaper than a new search', but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, cost model, and that answers are cited. It leaves the async wait/resume behavior and failure modes to the schema, which is a small but real 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% (search_id and wait_seconds are documented; question is not). The example questions give a feel for acceptable question phrasing but add no format, length, or scoping guidance for the required `question` parameter, so it only marginally compensates for the gap.

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: ask a question over a completed search's corpus to get a cited answer without re-searching. Clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` by emphasizing that no new search occurs.

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 the triggering condition ('completed search', 'without searching again') and concrete example questions ('what do they say about price', 'summarize the objections'), plus a cost contrast against a new search. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for the initial search case, so it falls short of a 5.

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