answer

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that reply_to identifies the question being answered; it does not say who receives the answer, whether a session must be registered first, or any delivery/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key clarification about reply_to is placed immediately after the action statement.

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 simple 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the action and the reply linkage, but leaves the session dependency and answer delivery unstated.

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% (session and reply_to documented, text undocumented beyond maxLength). The description repeats the reply_to meaning already in the schema and adds nothing about text length, format, or session linkage, so it neither helps nor hurts much — baseline 3.

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 (answer) and resource (a question sent to you), and the parenthetical clarifies what reply_to refers to. It is distinguishable from siblings like ask/send, though it does not explicitly point to inbox/check as the way to obtain 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?

"A question that was sent to you" implies the usage context (you have an incoming question, likely surfaced via inbox/check), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to a sibling tool.

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