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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; beyond that the description adds real value by disclosing what each entry contains (data known at open, resolution rule, closing time) and that no API key is required. It stops short of stating ordering, pagination, or result limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the single filter instruction. No filler, no repetition of the schema's enum values beyond what is needed.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is essentially complete, and it helpfully describes return contents despite there being no output schema. Only ordering and volume behavior are left unspecified.

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% with a single enum parameter already fully documented, so the schema carries the detail. The description only adds that the field narrows (rather than sorts or expands) the list, which is a marginal but real clarification.

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 (List) and resource (open questions), scoped to four named domains, and specifies the payload fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like leaderboard or submit_forecasts, which concern rankings and submissions rather than browsing open questions.

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?

'Pass field to narrow the list' gives the filtering condition and 'No key needed' clarifies auth, but it never says when to choose this tool over siblings such as library or my_report. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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