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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Read-only.' It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the shape of each returned slot, the `ask_if` conditional applicability, and the boundary that photos are handled by the person on Muovi rather than through this server. It does not discuss pagination or result size, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (parameter source, output fields, feedback path, photo boundary). It is somewhat dense in the enumeration of slot fields, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape: `key`, `question_es`, `type`, `options`, `value_format`, `required`, `ask_if`, and `photo_policy`. It also closes the loop on how answers are consumed by `muovi_create_task_draft`, which is exactly what an agent needs to complete the workflow.

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 parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Pass a `service_slug` from `muovi_list_services`' restates the provenance already present in the schema description rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 ('List') and resource ('the questions Muovi asks for one service') and immediately frames the workflow role relative to siblings (`muovi_create_task_draft`, `muovi_list_services`). An agent can tell it apart from the other muovi_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('so you can ask the person before calling `muovi_create_task_draft`') and where the required input comes from ('Pass a `service_slug` from `muovi_list_services`'). Both the trigger condition and the prerequisite source are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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