get_question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: answers are nested inline, the sibling tool omits them, specific OAuth scopes are required, and the content is untrusted data with prompt-injection risk. This materially helps the agent handle the response safely.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core operation comes first, the sibling contrast and permission requirement second, and a necessary safety warning last. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema fields.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, how it differs from the closest sibling, required permissions, and unrusted-data handling. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only defines 'id' as a required string with no further explanation. The description adds the key semantic that this is the Skilljar id, which is necessary to pick the right identifier among many possible ids. It could say more about format or source, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Fetch one question by its Skilljar id, with its answers nested inline.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from list_questions by noting that list_questions deliberately omits answers, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting 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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool: 'This is how you read the answers and which of them are correct - list_questions deliberately does not return them.' It also states the required permission scopes, giving clear authorization context for invocation.

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