:

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

Discloses the async/polling nature ('optionally wait for completion'), which is critical behavioral context absent from the schema. However, with no annotations, it fails to explain what gets created/returned, side effects (caching, artifacts), or timeout 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?

Two sentences, zero redundancy. Main purpose is front-loaded. However, extreme brevity is inappropriate for a 12-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, suggesting under-specification rather than efficient design.

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?

Grossly incomplete for the complexity level (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). Omits expected return value, polling mechanics, and configuration effects.

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?

Addresses only 2 of 12 parameters (implies 'question', explains 'original_article_id' for follow-ups). With 0% schema coverage, the description utterly fails to document the 10 other parameters including timeouts, caching, and output formatting options.

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 the core action ('Create a question') and distinguishes the tool from siblings via the follow-up instruction referencing original_article_id, which links to oe_article_get. Slightly awkward phrasing ('Create' vs 'Ask') but clear enough.

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?

Provides specific guidance for follow-up usage (pass original_article_id), but lacks broader context on when to use this tool versus oe_article_get or oe_history_list, and omits prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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