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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate. It adds the behavioral detail that current_qid limits to earlier questions, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether questions in the current survey are always included or the exact ordering, but given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then the important filter. No wasted words; the example is helpful and placed early.

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 simple read-only list tool with 2 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the token concept and the filtering behavior. Minor gap: it doesn't specify what is returned (just question IDs or full objects), but given the simplicity, 4 is fair.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the semantic of current_qid (limiting to earlier questions), which goes beyond the schema's phrase 'being edited'. This is slight added value, hence 3.

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 the tool lists questions whose answers can be piped via tokens, with a specific example. It distinguishes itself from list_questions by focusing on pipeable questions and mentioning the current_qid filter, which is unique among siblings.

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 explains the concept of 'pipeable questions' and the current_qid parameter for filtering earlier questions, giving a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_questions, but the context makes the purpose obvious, so I would rate it at 4.

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