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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, read-only status, freshness, or whether 'open' and 'unresolved' are distinct status filters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action is immediately clear. Minor redundancy between 'open' and 'unresolved' prevents a 5, but there is no wasted 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 a tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is thin. It omits when to use it instead of random_question or search_findings, what fields are returned, and any filtering or ordering semantics, so an agent has to infer too much to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the limit parameter at all. The property name and min/max constraints in the schema are suggestive, but the description adds no meaning about defaults, result ordering, or how limit affects the returned list.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List open unresolved research questions'), making the core function clear. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like submit_question and random_question, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_findings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose list_questions over random_question, search_findings, or get_finding. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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