Buy more follow-up questions

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

Annotations only mark this non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing the exact cost (1 MINERAL), the quantity granted (20 follow-up questions), the scope (one replay), and the hard refusal rule requiring confirm_spend. This is the behavioral context an agent needs before spending a real resource.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the cost and benefit before the safety precondition. No filler 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry the post-call picture; it explains cost, effect and the refusal condition, but not what the agent receives back or whether the unlock persists/changes the replay's state. Minor gap for an otherwise complete definition.

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% and the schema already documents both the replay identifier formats and the confirm_spend guard in detail. The description reinforces the confirm_spend semantics and adds the price, but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: spend 1 MINERAL to unlock 20 more follow-up questions on one replay. The scope ('on one replay', 'follow-up questions') is precise enough to separate it from ask_about_replay and the other siblings.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — it refuses unless confirm_spend is true, and confirm_spend must only be set after explicit user agreement. It does not name an alternative action for a user who declines to spend, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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