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 mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - nothing about placement behavior, chaining, or what happens to sibling nodes - so it does little to enrich the annotation set.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core action leads and the usage hint follows immediately.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin relative to the tool's complexity - especially the non-trivial insertion-positioning options the schema documents. The annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the load, but a sentence on placement or required context would round it out.

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 are already documented (including placement semantics for after/parentId/position and the isHidden/show-rule note). The description adds no parameter detail, 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 star rating question'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling question types like insertLinearScaleQuestion or insertNumberQuestion. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource specificity is enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 for satisfaction scores, reviews' gives a use-case cue that implies when this question type is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against rating-style siblings such as linear scale or number.

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