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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description's added value is the return shape (slug, field_type, required flag, answers_count) which helps the agent decide whether to call it. It doesn't mention pagination behavior despite page/page_size params, which is the only gap.

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 tightly written sentences plus the endpoint citation; the core purpose is front-loaded and the actionable follow-up (use slug with tito_list_answers) is placed immediately after. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the fields returned. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 event_slug, account_slug, page and page_size. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 questions an event asks attendees') and disambiguates from the sibling tito_list_answers by scoping to question definitions. The parenthetical examples of question types make the resource concrete.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use a question's slug with tito_list_answers.' This gives a clear follow-up path, though it doesn't state when to prefer this over other listing tools or prerequisites beyond the implied token/account.

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