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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation and 'open' signals the default scope, matching the status default. However, it does not disclose output shape, ordering, auth requirements, or that status='solved' is supported despite the prose focusing only on open problems.

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 description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list operation with fully described optional parameters, the description is adequate. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any return-shape or behavior details leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive after calling the tool.

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 documents limit, status, and category adequately. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the 'open' default, so the baseline score of 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 resource ('open problem specifications and challenges on the Agora square'), clearly indicating a read-only enumeration. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like agora_read_thread or agora_recent_solves, but the scope and intent are clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention agora_read_thread for thread details, agora_post_problem for creating problems, or agora_recent_solves for solved items. The only implied usage is 'list open problems,' which is not enough for reliable tool routing.

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