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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema — 'Requires 1+ options' merely restates the existing minItems:1 constraint, and nothing is said about insertion ordering, mutation side effects, or interaction with 'after'/'position'.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded followed immediately by the key gating rule. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 an 8-parameter insertion tool with positional complexity (after vs position, parentId, default required=true), the description is thin, but the fully-covered schema carries that burden and there is no output schema to explain. It is adequate but leaves the ordering/mutation semantics entirely to the schema.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema (including the tricky after-vs-position distinction and $prev chaining). The description only echoes the options requirement, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource (insert a checkbox question) and its selection semantics (multi-choice, user can pick multiple). This implicitly distinguishes it from the many sibling question-insertion tools (radio, select, picture-choice), though it never names the closest alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use when user can pick multiple' gives a clear selection criterion that routes the agent away from single-select siblings. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'use insertRadioQuestion when only one answer is allowed'), so it's clear context rather than a full when/when-not statement.

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