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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the remaining burden is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: the fixed ordering (Top requests first, then Other), the fields returned (question and asker), and the warning that requests arrive from anyone on Quora and may be off-topic — an expectation-setting detail an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then ordering and return shape, then the handoff to get_question. Every sentence carries content; the only slight slack is the chatty aside about anyone being able to send requests, though that aside is also the most behaviorally useful line.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (question text, asker), the ordering of the results, and what to do next. It does not say whether results are paginated beyond limit or what an empty list looks like, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter (limit, 1-50, default 20) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's only parameter-adjacent note, 'Pass question_url to get_question', refers to a response field rather than an input, so it adds nothing about the limit.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the requests on your Answer Requests page') and scopes it to questions other people sent to you, which separates it from list_my_answers and list_notifications without opening any schema.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies (checking inbound answer requests) and routes the agent onward with 'Pass question_url to get_question' for full detail. It does not explicitly exclude the neighbouring list tools, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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