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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns data rather than mutating anything, which strongly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it mention any authentication or state assumptions. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes the important detail about the identifier. There is no redundant or filler wording; every part earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned and why the identifier matters. It lacks an explicit mention of output structure or whether the result is paginated, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('open questions'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like question_answer by focusing on retrieval and the associated identifier. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it relates to the broader question workflow.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool: when you need the list of open questions and their answering identifiers. It provides clear context for use, and because there is no sibling that reads questions, no exclusion is needed. However, it does not explicitly name question_answer as the follow-up tool.

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