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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it interacts one question at a time, "sends nothing" (no submission/network side effect), and can return elicitation: false as a signal. Disclosing that fallback return value is real added value beyond annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, imperative and front-loaded ("Call this first, always"), with zero filler. Each sentence carries either the invocation rule, the behavior, or the fallback.

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 zero-param interactive tool with no output schema, the description still covers the return values that matter (the answers and the elicitation: false flag). It does not explain where "the numbered questions" originate (presumably get_questions), a minor 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 concrete action: it shows each question one at a time as a picker and returns the answers. That is a specific verb+resource an agent can act on. It does not name any sibling (get_questions, submit) to sharpen the boundary, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

"Call this first, always" gives explicit ordering, and the failure branch ("If it returns elicitation: false, ask the numbered questions in chat") tells the agent exactly what to do next. It never states when NOT to use it or names the sibling it supersedes, so it is strong but not complete.

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