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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the open world of who can send requests, the expected out-of-topic noise, and the auth prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app').

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and the follow-up routing. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the 'anyone can send a request' aside is useful framing rather than filler.

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 covers what is returned (question and requester), the auth requirement, and the follow-up tool. For a simple read-only list tool this is complete enough, though it could note pagination given the limit parameter.

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?

The single parameter (limit) is fully documented in the schema ('1 to 50. Default: 20.'), so the schema carries the meaning. The description's mention of question_url refers to a sibling tool's parameter, not this tool's, so it adds no parameter semantics here. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists the answer requests on the user's Answer Requests page, and even names the returned fields (the question and who asked). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quora_list_my_answers and quora_get_question.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly: 'Pass question_url to get_question' tells it how to follow up from a listed request. It also gives the context that requests can come from anyone, so questions may fall outside the user's topics. It stops short of saying when not to use it versus alternatives like list_my_answers.

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