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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that this is a two-step tool whose output depends on whether answers are supplied, which the annotations do not convey.

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 by mode, with zero filler. Every clause carries information about either input or output.

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 no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description covers both return shapes and the accepted slug values, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of detailing the result format of the 'most constrained bottleneck' output, but that gap is minor.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'one slug per question.' The description restates the valid slug set, which is already enumerated in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured data. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource for both modes: it returns the five quiz questions when called without answers, and the most constrained bottleneck when called with them. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like ai_infrastructure_bottlenecks or viral_attention_quiz.

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 effectively tells the agent when each mode applies: call with no answers to fetch the questionnaire, call with answers to score it. That is clear contextual routing, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the sibling tools.

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