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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: pagination shape, itemCount=0 for never-published templates, draftItemCount as the real size, and inaccuracy caveats for blockTypes and exampleCategories. It also states the read-only policy implication of no automated duplication. No contradiction.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized by scope. It is long, but nearly every sentence adds useful context; a few phrases could be tightened, such as the idempotent/read-policy sentence, which partially repeats annotations.

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 supplies the return structure ({items, page, pageSize, total, hasMore}) and entity fields (id, title, itemCount, draftItemCount, blockTypes, exampleCategories, categoryCount). It also explains the lack of pagination for templates and routes to question_bank_get for exact data, so an agent has what it needs to call 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that templates scope ignores all parameters except riddleType, and by explaining how projectId interacts with API-key scoping in practical terms. The schema already documents parameter meanings, so the additional value is moderate but real.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Lists question banks') and immediately distinguishes two scopes: 'own' vs 'templates', each with distinct semantics. It also names question_bank_get as the exact-data alternative, clearly differentiating it from related 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?

It explicitly says when to use 'own' (project banks, optionally via projectId or the API-key-scoped default) and when to use 'templates' (built-in starter banks). It also gives a when-not: use question_bank_get instead if exact blockTypes or exampleCategories are needed, and warns against automated duplication.

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