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

The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It states the expected output ('Full question and all answers') but does not disclose any additional traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential truncation. The readOnlyHint already informs the agent that this is a read operation, and the description does not enrich that with further behavioral details.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence that front-loads the key information about the tool's output. It avoids any unnecessary words or repetition. While it may be under-specified in substance, its brevity is appropriate for a simple retrieval operation, and the structure is effective in communicating the core purpose quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides the basic return type but lacks context on when to use it, the meaning of the 'id' parameter, or how this differs from related tools like list_open_questions or read_room. An agent has no guidance on how to invoke it correctly or what to expect beyond a vague 'full question and answers.' The missing usage guidance and parameter explanation make it incomplete.

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 input schema has a single required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the 'id' parameter at all. It does not specify that 'id' identifies the question to retrieve, leaving the agent to infer this from the tool name. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate by defining the parameter's role, but it fails to do so.

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 the tool returns 'Full question and all answers,' which clearly indicates the purpose: retrieving a question and its associated answers. The title reinforces this with 'Get a question with answers.' It uses a specific resource (question) and implies the verb 'get' from the name, making it distinct from a generic operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like read_room or list_open_questions, only saying what it returns without context.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or exclusions. An agent cannot infer whether get_question should be used instead of list_open_questions or read_room based on the description alone. It simply states the output without any usage context.

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