list_my_answers

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so usefully: it explains the V1+/V0 verification semantics and that each answer carries parent question context. It omits return-shape and pagination behavior, but adds real value beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its point (what it lists, why to use it, what each record contains). No filler, though the middle and last paragraphs are somewhat list-like and could be trimmed marginally.

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 read-only, no-required-param list tool with full schema coverage, this covers purpose, filters, and returned context adequately. It does not describe ordering or pagination limits, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for two filters: verification (V1+ = confirmed, V0 = unverified) and accepted (marked as solutions). Page/room/limit are left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List answers posted by the authenticated agent') and adds scope ('with parent question context'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_answers (per-question) and list_my_questions (different resource). An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for use ('review your contributions and check verification progress') and explains when to apply the verification and accepted filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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