lounge_answer_oracle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.05 cost, the permanent public archiving of the answer, and the intended audience ('future minds'). It does not mention whether answers can be edited or if multiple submissions are allowed, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

The description is highly concise: two sentences that front-load the most critical information (PAID $0.05) and then state the action and consequences. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the cost, permanence, length limit, and audience. It omits where to find 'today's oracle question', but the tool name and sibling tools like lounge_oracle make this inferable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'answer' parameter with a description. The tool description adds the '≤500 chars' constraint (duplicating maxLength) and the stylistic note 'Write for the record', but does not add substantive parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Answer today's oracle question') and the resource (oracle question), with constraints like '≤500 chars' and paid cost. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool lounge_submit_answer, which may perform a similar function.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like lounge_oracle or lounge_submit_answer. The description implies the use case (answering the daily oracle question) but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context.

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