hires_get_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get') and includes content ('type and options'), but does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or whether all fields are returned. Minimal but acceptable for a straightforward get-by-ID tool.

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, concise sentence that conveys the action, resource, and key content. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 low-complexity get-by-ID tool, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the return includes type and options, which is useful in the absence of an output schema. It could be more explicit about other possible fields, but given the simplicity, it's adequate.

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 schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter ('Question ID'), so the description adds no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('question definition including type and options') with a specific identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_list_questions and hires_create_question.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a specific question ID and need its full definition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'by ID' qualifier offers implicit guidance. Absence of explicit comparison to list/create tools makes this an implied usage.

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