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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds what annotations do not: the returned fields (ticket_id, response text) and the underlying endpoint. It omits pagination/auth behavior, but page and page_size are already documented in the schema.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states the payload, the second anchors the underlying API call. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler.

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 read-only, five-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the endpoint while the schema handles all parameter detail, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Pagination behavior is the only unstated aspect.

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 all five parameters (page, page_size, event_slug, account_slug, question_slug) are already explained in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline for schema-heavy definitions.

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 (list) plus resource (answers to a question) and scope ('one question'), and even names the payload shape (ticket_id and response text). It is distinguishable from every sibling, none of which touch question answers.

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 implied rather than stated: the tool needs a question_slug, which the schema ties back to tito_list_questions, implying a list-questions-then-list-answers workflow. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing in the description itself.

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