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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what is returned (questions, their options, and per-question answer counts), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or scope (all vs open questions).

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?

A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the returned content. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately. The one remaining ambiguity is whether the list is restricted to still-open questions as the title suggests.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'questions' and it previews the returned shape (options, answer counts). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'results', which plausibly overlaps on answer data.

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?

Usage is only implied: a zero-parameter browse call to discover questions before answering. There is no explicit when-to-use versus 'results', and no statement of whether it returns all questions or only open ones, despite the title saying 'open questions'.

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