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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds useful return-shape context—newest-first ordering and presence of count/decision fields—but omits permissions, visibility, pagination, and is truncated.

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 incomplete fragment ending in an ellipsis. It is short, but not front-loaded with an action verb and fails to form a complete statement.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the space parameter and the return content. Annotations cover safety, but the truncated description leaves key invocation details missing.

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 single required 'space' parameter has 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'The space's questions', which restates the param name without specifying identifier format, lookup behavior, or whether it is a slug/ID.

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 fragment indicates it returns a space's questions ordered newest first and mentions count and decision, implying a read/list operation. But there is no explicit verb, and the trailing 'and the...' leaves the purpose partly ambiguous. Sibling differentiation is only implicit through the resource name.

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 given on when to use this tool versus space_ask, space_vote, space_decide, space_board_check, or space_context. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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