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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes sensitive answer-key data (is_correct, pairs/items, explanation) and that this is an admin view. However, it does not mention access-control enforcement, pagination behavior, ordering, or whether draft/inactive items are included.

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 carry all essential meaning with no filler. The parenthetical field list is compact and useful, and the admin authoring qualifier earns its place without bloating the description.

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?

This is a low-complexity list tool with three parameters, and the description covers the key semantic: list question-bank items with answer keys. There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the important returned fields. It does not specify the exact response envelope, but 'list' plus the provided field names is adequate for a straightforward paginated read call.

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 67%, with limit and offset already fully described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond implying that bank_id refers to the bank whose questions are listed. The missing bank_id description is partly compensated by the tool name and phrasing, but the description itself contributes no parameter detail.

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 the questions in a bank.' The addition of 'WITH the answer key (is_correct, pairs/items, explanation)' and 'Authoring view for admins' clearly separates this from siblings like get_question_bank, list_question_banks, and list_quiz_questions. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and for whom.

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?

The phrase 'Authoring view for admins' gives clear context about when this tool is appropriate: an admin/authoring workflow, not a learner-facing one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion conditions, but the intended audience and view are communicated well enough.

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