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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. Beyond that, the description discloses the shape of the returned data (slug, field_type, required flag, answers_count) and the underlying endpoint, which is meaningful behavioral context with no output schema present.

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 compact sentences that front-load the purpose and then the follow-up action. Every clause earns its place, though the trailing raw endpoint string is marginally redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the page/page_size parameters in the schema largely fill that gap.

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 event_slug, account_slug, page and page_size are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that a question's slug is the key used to fetch answers but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 even enumerates the returned fields (slug, field_type, required flag, answers_count). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like tito_list_answers or tito_list_tickets.

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 to the follow-up tool: 'Use a question's slug with tito_list_answers,' which establishes the workflow context. It does not, however, state exclusions or when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as tito_list_answers directly.

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