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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it is public data visible to anyone, returns questions in display order, and conveys which form fields exist and are required. It does not discuss pagination behavior or exact response shape, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds workflow guidance that earns its place.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is largely complete. It even states public access and the use-before-submit workflow; however, it does not describe the shape of paginated results or explicitly note default pagination, though these are documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the parameters (event_slug, page, page_size) are already documented. The description adds context about form_field_ids and required fields, but does not add meaning to the individual parameters 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 ('List') and a specific resource ('custom questions an event asks at registration time'), including that results are in display order. It clearly distinguishes this from the many other event_* read tools by making the registration-form subject explicit.

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 gives concrete usage context: this is public data and should be called before event_submit_registration_answers to discover form_field_ids and required fields. It does not list exclusions or full when-not-to-use cases, but the intended place in the workflow is clear.

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