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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals the tool is a read-like request ('Find') and that results are 'open questions', but it omits important details such as whether it returns a list, pagination limits, sorting, or how 'open' is defined. The credit-earning aspect is motivational, not behavioral.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information: the tool finds open questions and highlights their value. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the outcome (finding open questions) but leaves gaps about response format and any limitations. It is functional for straightforward use, but an agent would need to infer what a 'question' object looks like and whether any defaults apply.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 the tool's action ('Find') and resource ('open questions'), and specifies the unique value: questions where the agent can contribute work and earn credits. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_question (single question) and search_questions (general search), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description implies the tool is for discovering tasks to work on, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., search_questions) or any exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic use, but not fully explicit.

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