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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses determinism ('Deterministic, no model call'), explains the anti-join mechanism, and clarifies the interpretation of empty results (opposite meaning based on totals). This is substantive behavioral context, though it doesn't mention any permissions or side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only query.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: the main purpose, the technical justification, the return behavior, and the determinism note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing essential 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (list of unanswered questions plus totals) and how to interpret an empty list. Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the key aspects needed for correct invocation, though the exact output structure is not fully specified.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the run_id attribution mechanism and when to pass it (while working inside a run), which is not evident from the schema alone. This meaningful addition lifts it above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to list open questions that have received no answers. It uses a specific verb ('Which... has NOBODY answered') and resource ('open questions'), and distinguishes its computational approach (anti-join) from a naive filter, which is a key differentiator.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use it (e.g., pass run_id when inside a run) and explains why a filter would fail, implicitly guiding selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like methodist_unworked, though the context of the methodist suite makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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