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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: piping tokens are inserted as {{Q<qid>}}, the tool returns the updated questionnaire plus created_qid, and answer codes are auto-assigned. It doesn't mention side effects like whether appending affects existing questions, but the return value and piping behavior are meaningful additions.

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-loaded: the core action and the type-dependent requirements come first, followed by the piping note and the return value. Every sentence carries information not already in the schema, and there is no filler.

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 20-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important cross-field constraints and the return value. It doesn't enumerate every type-specific parameter (e.g., rating_limit for star_rating, range_multi_min for slider), but the schema already documents those, and the description's type-dependent guidance covers the critical branching. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit return description.

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%, so the schema already documents all 20 parameters. The description adds cross-parameter semantics that the schema cannot express: which parameters are required for which question types (answers vs subquestions), and how piping tokens relate to list_piping_sources. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Append a question with its answer options'), and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_question, delete_question, and reorder_questions. It also names the sibling list_piping_sources for piping IDs, which further disambiguates its role.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: it is for appending a question, and it points to list_piping_sources for piping IDs. It also gives per-type requirements (single_select/multi_select/ranking need answers; matrix needs subquestions AND answers), which is actionable usage guidance.

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