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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it labels the operation WRITE, states that it returns the new question_id, discloses the 30 requests per hour per API key rate limit, and gives the API endpoint. These are exactly the kind of operational traits an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded: 'WRITE: add a new question...' immediately signals the operation. Every subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact: allowed types, return value, truefalse rule, rate limit, and endpoint. There is no wasted wording.

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 10-parameter creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: it reports the returned question_id, rate limit, mutation nature, and type restrictions. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without needing to inspect sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters, including the truefalse correct_options format and the question_type enum. The description repeats the creatable types and the truefalse option rule but adds no new syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'add a new question to the question bank.' It also lists the four creatable question types and the return value. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like update_question or get_question, though the create verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 description gives clear usage context by restricting creation to multiplechoice, multipleresponse, truefalse and essay. It also gives a special usage rule for truefalse correct_options. It does not point to alternatives such as update_question for modifying existing questions, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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