verified_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description discloses what the output contains (question, metric, dimensions, gold SQL) and the purpose (regression tests). It does not discuss edge behaviors like staleness or refresh behavior, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and content, and the second adds the key interpretive fact (regression tests) that differentiates it from sibling tools. Every word earns its place.

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-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it tells the agent what is returned (verified questions with metric, dimensions, gold SQL) and why the list exists (the model's regression tests). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage of an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters whose meaning could be under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('this model's verified questions'), and specifies the contents ('known-good question, metric, dimensions, and the gold SQL'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling catalog tools by labeling these as 'the model's own regression tests,' so an agent can tell it apart from list_entities and list_metrics without opening schemas.

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 supplies clear context for when this tool is relevant—when one wants to inspect the model's regression/test questions rather than the data catalog—via 'These are the model's own regression tests.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings (list_entities, list_metrics, describe_*) is reasonably implied by describing the resource as the model's own tests.

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