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 useful behavior details: newest-first ordering, inclusion of both site and API questions, and no cost. It does not explain pagination, return shape, or authentication.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted wording. The key scope and ordering details are front-loaded.

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 this is partly adequate, but with two undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what 'q' and 'before' do and what the returned question entries contain. Those gaps leave an agent under-informed.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. 'q' and 'before' remain completely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource as this account's questions, with ordering and source scope ('newest first, site and API alike'). It is distinguishable from siblings like ask_question or get_answer, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or start with a verb.

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 implies the tool is for viewing past questions, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related tools such as ask_question or get_answer. 'Free' is a cost note, not usage guidance.

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