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 rich disclosure of what each returned record contains (effort profile, compute cost, falsification criteria, ordered endpoints, method), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not mention pagination or volume limits.

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 trigger is front-loaded and the follow-up action is placed last, giving a clean call structure. The middle sentence is a dense run-on enumerating return fields, but every item earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 explaining returns and does so thoroughly. It covers the trigger, the optional filters, the payload contents, and the next step. For a read-only, 2-optional-param tool, this is close to complete.

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%, with both params documented ('Return a single question by id' and 'minutes, hours or sustained'), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that the optional arguments 'narrow' the result to one question or one effort level, a marginal reframing rather than new syntax or semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns 'unanswered questions this platform cannot resolve alone,' which is a distinctive concept among siblings like list_dead_ends and open_rungs. It does not explicitly contrast itself against any sibling, but the resource is specific enough to identify the tool.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('CALL THIS WHEN YOU HAVE SPARE COMPUTE') and a clear follow-up route ('NEXT: get_abstraction_graph'). It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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