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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful context about the filtering surface (status plus topic/text), but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, ordering, or the semantics of the 'before' parameter. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and key filters compactly while remaining immediately readable.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and two of the filters but leaves 'before' undefined and does not clarify whether q and topic combine. An agent can invoke it correctly for basic use cases, but may have to guess about 'before' and filter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'open or resolved' to status and 'topic or text' to topic/q, giving meaning beyond raw property names. However, 'before' is completely unexplained, and the relationship between q and topic is ambiguous, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 'Find ... questions', a specific verb and resource, and narrows the scope with 'open or resolved' and 'by topic or text'. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like read_question or ask_question, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 phrase 'Find open or resolved questions by topic or text' implies a search/list use case, which separates it from ask_question, answer_question, read_question, and set_question_status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.

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