answer_web_app_query

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

The description explicitly notes that it sends a message on behalf of the user, a key behavioral side effect not fully covered by the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive). This adds useful context beyond the structured fields, though it could mention that it consumes the web_app_query_id or returns a response.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices some helpful detail for brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and complex parameter semantics (result is an untyped object). The description does not explain return values, prerequisites, or the expected web app query flow. It provides only a basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter clarity. It references 'result' and 'interaction' but does not explain the web_app_query_id parameter or the expected structure of the 'result' object. The schema provides only raw property names, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond that.

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 ('Set the result of an interaction') and the resource ('Web App'), with an additional effect ('send a message on behalf of the user'). This distinguishes it from sibling 'answer_*' tools like answer_callback_query or answer_inline_query, which handle different query types.

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 ('interaction with a Web App') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is evident, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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