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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral content: it discloses the evidence-state vocabulary returned per question type ('published with rates, collecting, or not collectable'), which is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the return payload, with the enumeration folded into a parenthetical rather than expanded into prose. Dense but every clause carries content; only minor cost is the long inline list.

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?

With no output schema and only one param, the description does the heavy lifting by describing the return shape: the set of question shapes and the three evidence states. It stops short of explaining what a rate looks like or any pagination, but it is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 required 'category' key, and the schema already supplies the format hint and the cross-reference to mri_list_categories. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the 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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('one category's question shapes') and an enumerated list of the shape types it covers (best tools, comparisons, top lists, etc.). It is clear what the tool yields, though the description itself never names the sibling tools it is distinct from (mri_list_categories / mri_get_domain), so differentiation is left to 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The sequencing is only implied by the parameter's schema note ('Category key from mri_list_categories'), which tells the agent this follows a listing call, but the description offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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