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

Annotations already declare the tool is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the drag-to-rank interaction and the 'requires 2+ options' constraint, but the option constraint is already enforced by the schema, and no additional behavioral traits such as insert side effects, chaining behavior, or placement defaults are disclosed beyond what structured fields provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context and a compact example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 insert tool with eight parameters, full schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select the tool and understand its core requirement. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning placement behavior at a high level, but that detail is fully available in 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 eight parameters already have documented meanings. The description includes an example using title and options, which is mildly helpful, but it does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Insert a ranking question') and immediately clarifies the distinguishing use case: ordering items by preference via drag-to-rank. This is enough to separate it from sibling question-insertion tools such as rating, radio, or select 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?

It gives a clear condition for use: 'Use when the respondent must order items by preference.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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