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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the underlying API route, which is mild context, but says nothing about what happens when a stop has no POD questions, whether results are paginated, or what the answer payload looks like.

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 and followed by the endpoint reference. Nothing is padded and the reader gets the gist from the first clause.

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 single-parameter read tool with only a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description should say something about the returned answers (question text, answer values, timestamps) and empty-result behavior. It covers the 'what' but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning. The phrase 'on a stop' plus the documented route GET /stops/{id}/podquestionanswers implies stop_id identifies the stop, but it never clarifies the expected type (integer ID vs external reference) or the failure mode for an invalid ID.

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: retrieves a driver's proof-of-delivery question answers for a stop. The resource is unambiguous and does not overlap with any sibling tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with related stop tools like locate2u_get_stop or locate2u_list_stop_notes.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need POD answers for a specific stop. There is no statement of when to prefer it over locate2u_get_stop (which likely embeds some POD data) or any prerequisite such as the stop having POD questions configured.

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