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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: archived rows are filtered out and can be restored by re-adding the term, source=estimate means nothing was measured, and null reads as 'no exact-match volume reported' rather than zero. That is substantive disclosure an agent could not get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the remainder is a single dense paragraph of comma-spliced clauses about volumeStatus, aiVolumeStatus, agentAnalysis, previewRank and editorNote. The information is useful yet the run-on structure makes it hard to scan.

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 carries the return-value semantics itself and does so thoroughly for the key fields (volume statuses, source=estimate, agentAnalysis provenance, previewRank, editorNote). What it omits is pagination/limit behavior and the overall result shape, a minor gap for a read-only list tool.

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 only 50% (workspaceId documented, archived bare), and the description compensates by fully defining archived's two-way behavior — omit to exclude retired questions, pass true to list only them. It does not restate workspaceId, but the schema already handles that side.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource: list topic-bank questions together with the citability brief. It is clearly distinct from write-side siblings like add_topics, merge_topics or propose_topics, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other read siblings (list_evidence, list_posts), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The only routing guidance is the archived branch: archived questions are excluded by default and archived: true lists only the retired ones. There is no statement of when to prefer this over suggest_topics/plan_topics/research_topic, so usage is implied rather than framed.

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