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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description adds useful return-shape details: each question's id, related items, suggested answers, and numbering from 1. It also explains the intended next action. It does not cover pagination or edge cases, but for a simple read-only list tool the added context is solid.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before giving usage instructions. The final 'Read-only' fragment is redundant with the annotations, but the rest of the text is efficient and every sentence carries useful information.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough return detail and usage guidance to invoke it correctly. It does not explain whether zero-result cases occur or how ordering works beyond the numbering note, but those gaps are minor.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that the company parameter selects one connected company or all when omitted. The description reinforces this behavior but adds no syntax, format, or selection details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource and scope: pending questions for a company's loops, or all companies when none is named. It also explains what each returned question contains, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like answer_question. However, it opens with a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'List,' making the action slightly less direct.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: present the questions to the user and send the user's answer via answer_question. This names the relevant follow-up sibling tool and implies the correct use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention other sibling alternatives like list_loops.

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