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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the text. The description adds that only published questions are addressable and that the result is per-brand mention frequency, which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it never clarifies the response shape or what happens for an unpublished or unknown slug.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, but the ordering is backwards: the result metric is front-loaded while the action and resource selection come second. The second sentence is a fragment that spends words on the one thing the schema already names.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does gesture at the returned data (brand mention counts per question). However, for a tool whose name promises a question record, an agent cannot tell whether it gets the question itself, a brand-frequency breakdown, or both, which is a material ambiguity left unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does partially by identifying slug as 'the question page slug'. It does not explain the lowercase-hyphen format constraint, the 80-character limit, or where an agent obtains a valid slug, leaving the format rules to the schema pattern alone.

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 says the tool operates on 'one published question' and implies a retrieval by slug, but it never states the action with a verb — it leads with a result metric ('How often each brand is named'), which reads more like an aggregation than a single-record fetch. The name get_question and the sibling list_questions suggest a record retrieval, so the purpose is inferable but not stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives: list_questions for enumerating questions or get_brand for brand-level data. The only guidance is the parenthetical about the slug, which is parameter information rather than usage routing.

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