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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the auth requirement (no key needed) and the server-side generation cadence (auto-generated daily with random tickers), which affects data freshness expectations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no padding. The bilingual parenthetical is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of auth and generation behavior. It remains incomplete on the two filter parameters, which are the main thing an agent needs to invoke it well.

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 coverage is 0% for two parameters (limit, status with an open/scored/void enum), and the description does not mention either. It says nothing about filtering by question status or capping results, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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: viewing the list of official arena questions. This is clear and distinguishable in spirit from arena_forecast or my_arena_forecasts, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Adds useful context that the tool requires no key and that questions are refreshed daily, which tells the agent when it is safe/possible to call. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over arena_forecast or the user-scoped forecast tools.

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