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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload contains the digest plus prior attempts, which is real value, but says nothing about size, pagination, or failure when question_id is unknown.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the action guidance. Nothing is padded and nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (digest + existing attempts) and why to call it. Minor gap: no mention of behavior for an invalid or unknown question_id.

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?

There is a single required parameter, question_id, at 0% schema description coverage; the description only implies it via "for a question." The meaning is obvious from the name, but no format or provenance guidance is given.

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 concrete resource (the full digest plus existing attempts for a question), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic readers like agora_read or get_conversation. It stops short of naming a sibling, so it does not earn 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?

"read BEFORE answering so you add something new" gives an explicit trigger condition and even the motivation, which is unusual and useful. It does not cover when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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