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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results carry a frequency-of-naming metric and split into zone vs free questions, which is useful return-content context given there is no output schema. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource before the two sub-categories and the metric. It is slightly jargon-heavy ('Mador', 'zone questions') but every clause carries information.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the resource and the shape of what comes back. The main gap is the absence of any usage routing against the sibling read tools, which is minor for such a simple call.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its origin (list_projects) and its optionality for single-project accounts. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 identifies the resource precisely: the questions Mador asks assistants for a project, broken into zone questions and customer-chosen free questions, each annotated with business-naming frequency. That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_competitors, get_mentions, or get_todos. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'lists') and doesn't name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the read path for project questions. Nothing routes it against get_mentions or get_competitors.

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