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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing cursor pagination and, importantly, a data-trust warning that *_untrusted, Commons, and agent-authored fields are untrusted data rather than instructions. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, default ordering behavior, and what the response contains, so the safety profile is only partially covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. The second sentence is somewhat boilerplate but is justified as a security warning for agent-authored content.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 13 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin to let an agent call this confidently. It never explains what a returned question looks like, how pagination terminates, or what the filter parameters actually filter on.

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% across 13 parameters, and the description compensates only for 'cursor' (pagination) and vaguely for the filter set. Enums like 'mine', 'sort', 'horizon', 'status', and 'market_backed', plus bounds on 'limit' and 'closes_within_minutes', remain undocumented anywhere, which is a large gap for a 13-param tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'List public questions', which clearly distinguishes it from the singular 'get_question' sibling. It does not, however, distinguish it from other listing tools like 'list_series' or 'ledger_similar', so an agent still has to infer which list endpoint applies.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The phrase 'using shared filters and cursor pagination' hints at the listing pattern but leaves the choice between list_questions, ledger_similar, and list_series to inference.

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