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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing that each question includes its latest check result status (cited, not_cited, error), citation position, and run time, though it does not discuss pagination or ordering.

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 definition is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then concisely lists the returned information. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter), full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an existing output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected return contents. No material gaps remain.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains domain_id as 'The tracked domain's id, from list_domains.' The description says results are for 'a domain' but adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the questions tracked for a domain,' and clarifies that these are the prompts Rankwise asks AI engines. It also enumerates the returned fields, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_question, remove_question, and list_domains.

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 description implies the tool is used to retrieve tracked questions for a specific domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_citations or run_citation_check. It gives clear context without exclusions, leaving routing largely implicit.

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