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

The description adds a useful behavioral constraint (options only apply to select/multiselect types) beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens on duplicate creation. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, so the description adds some value but not extensive transparency.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and constraint. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words, though it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description omits return behavior or success indicators. It does not mention company_id requirements or any caveats beyond the options constraint. Given the tool has four parameters and two are undocumented, the description is incomplete for a fully informed call.

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?

The schema already documents options with the same note, so the description adds little for that parameter. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters text and company_id (50% schema coverage). The type parameter's guidance to list_question_types is not repeated in the description, and no additional semantics are provided for the remaining params.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a reusable question') and adds a clarifying constraint about options. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from other create_* tools like create_form or create_application, though the resource name makes it unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_question or list_questions. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool is preferable.

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