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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations – nothing about insertion ordering (after/position), the default required=true, or what happens to existing nodes. It essentially repeats feature names.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted text, though it is thin enough that it doesn't earn a 5 for information density.

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 13-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimal. Because schema coverage is 100%, the parameters themselves are well documented, so the definition is adequate but does not cover the behavioral complexity of insertion ordering and defaults.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including the tricky insertion-ordering semantics of 'after' and 'position'. The description's mention of min/max/step is redundant with the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Insert a number question') and clarifies the input domain ('for numeric input'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling insert*Question tools. It's clear but doesn't explicitly contrast against alternatives like text or rating questions.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. With dozens of sibling question-insertion tools, the agent gets no help deciding between this and insertTextQuestion, insertRatingQuestion, etc. 'Supports min/max bounds and step increments' describes features, not selection context.

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