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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (text, status, resolution note) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention error conditions, or describe the response shape beyond those fields. For a 'get' operation, read-only behavior is strongly implied, but the description could add a note about no side effects or permission requirements.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and it is easy 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?

Given the tool is a simple single-object retrieval with no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly: it identifies the resource, the return fields, and the identifier options. It does not enumerate all possible fields or error responses, but for this complexity level it is reasonably complete.

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 only describes 'key' with a short example; 'questionId' has no description (50% coverage). The tool description adds significant value by explaining both parameters are alternative identifiers, giving the format for 'key' ('BLG-Q7'), and stating they are mutually exclusive ('either'). This compensates for the schema gap and clarifies usage semantics.

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 states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('a single open question'), and specifies the detail level ('full detail (text, status, resolution note)'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling list_open_questions by targeting a single item, and from create/update tools by being a read operation. The resource is 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?

The description says 'Provide either questionId or key' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_open_questions or get_task. The usage context is implied (when you have an identifier), but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given. This is adequate but not explicit.

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