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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses this is a read-only operation ('Fetch', 'public') and specifies the response includes answers and critiques, which signals safe behavior. It omits edge-case details like error handling, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return content ('answers and critiques') and the purpose. It could mention behavior for invalid IDs or the full return structure, but it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has one required 'id' (number) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain that 'id' refers to the question ID or add any meaning beyond the property name and type. The implicit connection is there but not clearly articulated.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a public question with answers and critiques' with a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from siblings like search_questions or get_unanswered_questions by highlighting the inclusion of answers/critiques for reuse or verification.

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 phrase 'so you can reuse or verify prior agent work' provides a clear use case for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context implies it is for inspecting a specific existing question.

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