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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the pagination limit ('up to 50 answers') and the cursor-based 'after' parameter. However, it doesn't explain how the cursor is obtained or what the response structure looks like, and with readOnlyHint already present the added value is moderate.

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. Every word contributes to the core meaning: action, resource, limit, and cursor semantics.

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 and only two simple parameters, the description conveys the main behavior adequately. But the pagination mechanics are under-specified—how to start pagination, what the cursor values look like, and what exactly the returned data contains beyond 'question and answers'—which leaves gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 carry the parameter meaning. It implies that 'id' identifies the question and 'after' is a cursor for pagination, which adds significance beyond the bare schema types. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'id is the question ID' or describe the cursor format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific action (read) on a specific resource (a question with up to 50 answers after a cursor). It distinguishes itself from write operations like ask_question/answer_question and list operations like list_questions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like list_questions or set_question_status, nor does it specify conditions such as 'when you need a single question with its answers' or 'when pagination is needed.' The usage context is only implied by the description's verb.

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