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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context beyond them: that returned answers are unverified and do not constitute payment or eligibility clearance. It says nothing about scope, cost, or whether the list is exhaustive, so it is incremental rather than rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence is compact but its phrasing is elliptical enough that the meaning is not immediately recoverable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least characterize the return (a list of questions? their fields?) and define 'open' vs 'source-found'. Neither is covered, and the required input format is absent, leaving real gaps an agent must fill by trial and error.

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 0% for the single 'brand' parameter, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails: 'for a brand' gives no hint whether the value is a name, slug, or ID, nor what happens if it is omitted (the parameter is not required). Only the existence of brand-scoping is conveyed.

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?

The description gives a concrete verb and resource ('Read open and source-found questions for a brand'), but the domain jargon ('open', 'source-found') is never unpacked and the link to the tool's name/'missing proof' framing is left implicit. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as get_amoe_source or get_source_map, so an agent must guess how this differs from the other evidence-related tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the many sibling evidence tools (get_source_map, get_public_receipt, get_amoe_source), nor any prerequisite or trigger condition. The only directive sentence is a caveat about interpreting results ('not a verified payment or personal eligibility clearance'), which is a warning, not usage guidance.

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