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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: one question per day, anonymous answers, free access, and that the answer_url is where voting and results happen. It does not detail potential rate limits or authentication, but those likely do not apply.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then usage guidance, then return behavior. Every sentence adds relevant information without waste, including the concise 'Free.' note.

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 simple read-only tool with full parameter schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the response includes, so an agent can call it correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, language, and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains the BCP-47 language behavior. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly names the specific resource ('Today's Polemia question') and what it provides: a daily opinion question answered anonymously. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_quizzes, so it falls short of 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?

It gives explicit usage contexts: when the user wants a question of the day, a conversation starter, or to see what the world thinks. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it is clear but not complete.

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