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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The one genuine addition is that results are cursor-paginated, which tells the agent how to iterate, but nothing is said about ordering or return shape.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and pagination behavior. The 'Read-only' clause is partly redundant with annotations and 'contract v0' carries little actionable meaning, but there is no padding.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate. It omits what an answer is, whether ordering is stable, and how it differs from search_answers, and with no output schema it never hints at the nextCursor return value.

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 both `limit` and `cursor` are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'opaque cursor' phrasing merely echoes the schema without adding format or syntax guidance; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List Answers') and adds the scope detail that it is cursor-paginated. It is distinguishable from get_answer by being a list operation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_answers.

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 mention of an opaque cursor implies the intended usage (enumerating results page by page), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to search_answers for filtered queries.

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