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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: no authentication is needed ("Open to everyone") and the tool returns questions with their answers and tallies, which shapes what an agent should expect.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The core read purpose and return contents come first, the alternative action follows, and the access note closes it out.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so by naming slugs, numbered answers and tallies. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool that is close to sufficient, though the shape of the tallies (counts per answer) and any ordering are left implicit.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, which would normally earn the baseline 4 because there is no schema to compensate for. However, the only parameter-like content — "Pass a slug and an answer number" — belongs to the sibling `vote` tool, and stated in this definition it could lead an agent to try passing arguments to `read_census` that the empty schema does not accept.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read the open census questions") and enumerates what comes back: slugs, numbered answers and tallies. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling `vote` tool by describing voting as a different action.

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?

Gives clear context: this is the read path, and voting requires a slug plus answer number instead. It also states access conditions ("Open to everyone"). It does not explicitly name the `vote` sibling, so the routing is inferable rather than spelled out.

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