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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the usage count is incremented as a side effect, which explains why readOnlyHint is false while destructiveHint is false. However, it leaves ambiguous whether the returned query is executed by this tool or must be run separately, which is the most important behavioral question for a caller.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect, with the discovery hint last. No filler, though the phrase 'Returns the answer query to run' could be tightened to remove the execution ambiguity.

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, the description must explain the return value, and 'Returns the answer query to run' only half-does that: it does not say what form the query takes (SQL/Cypher/graph traversal) or whether the agent is expected to execute it via graph_resolve or a table query tool. For a single-param tool this is nearly complete, but the return contract is the missing piece.

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% and the parameter's own description already points at graph_entities common_questions, so the narrative adds little beyond restating the discovery source. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 and resource ('Execute a predefined common question by its ID') and names the sibling that provides the IDs, so it is distinguishable from graph_entities. The second sentence ('Returns the answer query to run') creates mild tension with 'Execute' about whether the tool runs the query or just hands it back, which keeps it from a 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call graph_entities first to discover questions and IDs. It does not cover when-not-to-use cases or name alternative question-running pathways, so it stops short of 5.

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