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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the payload (1-based order, total count, task-question follow-up flags) but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the returned fields, then usage. The field enumeration is long but every item is informative for selection; no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumeration of return fields is partly redundant, yet the description still gives an agent enough to know it should call this tool to inspect a single question and how to source the id. Adequate for a simple single-param read tool.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces provenance ('from project_overview.questions'), which is genuinely helpful for resolving the id, though it adds no new format constraints.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (question) with explicit scope 'ONE question', and it enumerates the returned fields (type, text, order, options, contentUrl, follow-up depth). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like question_breakdown and project_overview.

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?

States when to use it ('inspect a question's current position, options, and settings') and how to obtain the id ('Resolve question ids via project_overview's `questions` list'). No explicit when-not or named alternative for the aggregate case, so not a full 5.

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