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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds payload semantics (order is 1-based, total question count included, task-question follow-up flags) but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or freshness beyond what annotations/schema 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the field enumeration, and the id-resolution hint is placed last. The long dash-delimited field list is dense but each item is informative; slightly over-enumerated given an output schema exists.

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?

Given a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to select and call the tool, including how to obtain the id. It over-explains return fields that the output schema already defines, which is redundant but not harmful.

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% for the single questionId parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description's cross-reference to 'project_overview's questions list' largely duplicates the schema's own '(from project_overview.questions)' note, adding only marginal value.

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 specific verb+resource ('Full detail of ONE question') and enumerates the returned fields (type, text, 1-based order, total count, options, contentUrl, AI follow-up depth, follow-up enablement). The 'ONE' emphasis and field list distinguish it from the sibling aggregate tool question_breakdown.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('inspect a question's current position, options, and settings') and a resolution prerequisite ('Resolve question ids via project_overview's questions list'). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not condition versus question_breakdown, but the operational guidance is solid.

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