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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint path, which helps map to API docs, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth scope for a list operation.

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 sentences with no filler, and the resource identification is front-loaded ahead of the endpoint. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing usage and behavior context.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke. It still omits where form_id comes from and whether the response is paginated or ordered, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 single parameter form_id has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It partially does by showing {formId} in the path template, implying form_id identifies the parent form, but it never states format, source, or 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?

The description names the specific resource (custom questions attached to a form) and pairs it with the exact endpoint GET /api/v2/form/{formId}/custom-question, so an agent knows this is a read of a form's custom questions. No sibling overlaps this resource, so no differentiation is strictly needed, though the prose itself uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisite is given (e.g. that a form_id must first come from funraise_list_forms). The agent must infer that this is the way to inspect a form's question configuration.

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