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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results come back in Quora's own ordering rather than a computed relevance order, each item carries an answer count, and result sets are paginated by cursor. With no output schema, it could say more about the shape of an item (fields beyond url and answer count).

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, what it searches, and how to chain and paginate. Nothing is repeated for padding and the payoff (matching questions with answer counts) is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers return content (questions plus answer counts), ordering, and pagination, which is the information an agent most needs. The only real gap is the full item shape, though the reference to question_url implies the key field.

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 schema already defines limit, query and cursor. The description reinforces cursor semantics ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor for more') and clarifies that query is free-text search words, but adds no sizing or overflow guidance for limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the detail.

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 ('Searches Quora for questions matching your words') and states what comes back ('the number of answers each has'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is distinguishable from get_question via the explicit chaining note, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_question or other search-style tools.

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 concrete lifecycle guidance: use question_url from a returned item with get_question, and pass next_cursor back as cursor to page further. It stops short of stating when to search versus use other retrieval paths (e.g. ask_question), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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