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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ID format hint ('H1', 'F2') which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown IDs.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with resource and identification, then the returned payload contents. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the returned object contains (gap, change, open status, testability, linked studies) and the ID format. Missing only failure/not-found behavior and the ID scheme's boundaries.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required string parameter with no schema documentation. The description partially compensates by giving example ID values ('H1', 'F2'), which is the most useful thing it could say here, but does not describe the ID scheme or valid ranges.

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 (get) and resource (question), and even disambiguates it as 'open or frontier' — meaningful given the sibling list_questions. It does not name the alternative (list_questions) explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool takes an ID (e.g. 'H1', 'F2') and fetches one question, while the sibling list_questions presumably enumerates them. But the description never states when to use this vs list_questions or search, leaving the agent to infer.

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