answer_research_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some value: it discloses that refusal is a legitimate outcome, that sources must be real references, and that the reply is scoped to no new actions. It says nothing about idempotency, what status values are accepted, what happens on a mismatched reply_id, or what the response looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precondition and the parameter caveats. No filler, though a few phrases ('paired research chat', 'no new actions are authorized') are terse to the point of ambiguity.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers 2 of 7 inputs and omits status semantics, the meaning of id versus reply_id, and error behavior. An agent could not reliably construct a valid call from this alone.

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% across 7 parameters (6 required), so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It clarifies only sources (JSON array of actual references) and reply_id (stable), leaving id, request, answer, status, and sender entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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: return a factual answer or a refusal to a paired research question. That is clearly distinct from mutating siblings, though it never names read_research_question, acknowledge, or reply as the alternatives, and 'paired research chat' is unexplained jargon.

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?

'Consume and acknowledge the question first' gives a sequencing precondition, which is real usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-not, no routing to the sibling tools that handle acknowledgement or chat pairing, and 'No new actions are authorized' is an oblique constraint rather than a stated exclusion.

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