list_questions

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: one-page returns, has_more/next_cursor pagination contract, XOR ownership model for filters, and the fact that answers are omitted. It does not discuss errors or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 paragraphs, each with a single responsibility: purpose, pagination rule, ownership/exclusion semantics, and required permissions. Every sentence earns its place; no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 simple 4-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, pagination, filter exclusivity, permissions, and the alternative for answers. The only meaningful gap is page_size semantics, which is partially mitigated by the clear parameter name.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains filter_quiz_id and filter_question_bank_id including their disjoint-set guarantee, and implicitly explains page_cursor via next_cursor. However, page_size is never described (no default, max, or behavior), and cursor format is not 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('questions belonging to a quiz or reusable question bank'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_question and list_question_banks. It also explicitly says answers are not included and routes to get_question, removing ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit pagination instructions: check has_more and call again with next_cursor before reporting counts or absence. It also names get_question as the alternative when answers are needed and states required OAuth scopes, giving an agent clear when/how guidance.

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