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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though the 'get' prefix and content imply it. It does disclose the 'unknown' answer behavior, which is a useful detail, but lacks explicit safety or idempotency statements.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction is clear and actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description fully explains what the tool returns (questions with allowed answers) and how to use it (ask the user, pass to run_pathfinder). The 'unknown' answer note adds completeness for edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% with an empty object. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 that the tool returns the questions and allowed answers for the IIS Rescue two-minute assessment, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_migration_paths by focusing on the questions themselves and explicitly mentions run_pathfinder as the consumer of the answers.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to ask the questions to the user and then pass the answers to run_pathfinder, defining the exact usage flow. It also notes that 'unknown' is a valid answer to every question, which is a crucial guideline for handling user responses.

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