answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it discloses this is a write ('records', 'marks the question answered'), that the record is permanent, and critically that there is no still-unanswered check so repeat calls create duplicate answers. It also states what is returned (answer id and status), covering the non-idempotency risk an agent would otherwise miss.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and effect before the sibling routing and the duplicate-call caveat. No filler, though the return-values clause could be trimmed slightly since it is minor relative to the rest.

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 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it does, what it writes, what it returns, when not to use it, and the duplicate-answer hazard. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including what the response text should look like. The description adds only the framing 'by its questionId' and nothing about format or validation beyond that, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting – baseline 3 is correct.

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 in the project's inbox), plus the full effect: records the response, marks the question answered, returns the answer id and status. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ask', so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use ask to raise a question') and the exclusion ('answer is only for replying to one'), which fully resolves the ask-vs-answer decision. The questionId requirement in the first sentence further anchors when this tool applies.

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