submit_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a concrete action and return value, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether certain conditions (e.g., session state) must hold. This is acceptable high-level transparency but leaves important behavioral details undisclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the key return value. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description sufficiently states what it does and what it returns, and the schema covers the parameters. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should also convey any return nuances; it does mention the opening facilitator message, which is helpful. Minor details like prerequisite session state are not covered, but overall the description is adequate.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it neither improves nor degrades the semantic clarity.

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 a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('pre-session question answers'), and it adds the outcome ('start a facilitated conversation') and return value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chat_message or get_questions, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage context ('pre-session') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is not misleading, but the guidance is only implicit.

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