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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds semantic context about what open questions represent, but says nothing about the lifecycle nuance (the schema notes 'open' questions may be replaced on regeneration), which would be the valuable extra detail.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and the conceptual definition come first, then the filtering options. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety and world scope. The definition covers the essentials for a filtered read-list tool; only the enum-lifecycle nuance from the schema is unstated in prose.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself thoroughly documents status semantics and both UUID filters. The description only repeats the status values already listed in the schema, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond it — the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the project's open elicitation questions,' and further defines what those questions are ('the points the spec leaves unresolved'). That is enough to separate it from siblings like open_questions_answer or open_questions_convert_to_story, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 states a clear use condition ('read them before assuming intent') and tells the agent what filters are available. It does not explicitly contrast with the alternative answer/convert tools, which is the only missing piece.

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