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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying API endpoint (GET /questions/registration), which is mild but real context. It does not say whether results are paginated, ordered, or scoped to the authenticated site.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is a bare endpoint reference — compact and mildly useful for debugging, though not essential.

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?

A zero-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint annotation needs little explanation, and the description covers what is listed. The absence of an output schema means return shape is not explained, and the overlap with list_need_questions is unaddressed, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'of the site' hints that scoping is implicit from the API credentials, which is a useful clarification for a parameterless call.

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 and resource: 'List the custom registration questions of the site.' An agent can tell it is a read/list operation over registration questions. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling galaxydigital_list_need_questions, leaving ambiguity about which question set is which.

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 guidance on when to use this versus galaxydigital_list_need_questions or the other list_* siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when registration questions are relevant versus need questions.

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