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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: rows are 'normalized', a nonexistent slug returns 404, and limit is capped at 25. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope constraint comes first and the sibling routing last. The limit sentence is slightly redundant with the schema but is compact.

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 an output schema present, the return format needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, the required slug, limit bounds, and the 404 failure mode. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around result ordering/coverage of non-public projects.

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 both parameters are already fully documented. The description restates the limit default/maximum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Returns normalized Metaculus question rows for one public project, filtered by its slug') and explicitly names the sibling it is not (metaculus_tournament_questions). An agent can distinguish it from metaculus_questions and metaculus_category_questions without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative (metaculus_tournament_questions) and the condition that selects it, plus the scoping condition ('one public project, filtered by its slug'). Clear routing context, though it does not explicitly contrast with the other question siblings like metaculus_questions or metaculus_category_questions.

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