list_questions

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description itself says only 'List Questions' and provides no context about pagination, defaulting behavior, or what data is returned. There is no contradiction, but also no added transparency.

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 short but under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence that merely restates the title does not earn its place because it adds no information. A helpful description could be one sentence with scope and filtering intent without losing brevity.

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?

The structured context partially compensates: annotations describe the safety profile, the input schema documents all filters, and an output schema exists for return shape. However, the description itself lacks any usable guidance for tool selection among the large sibling list, and it does not clarify what 'questions' means in this system. The overall definition is workable but leaves important selection context to inference.

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%: all five parameters have meaningful descriptions, and the source parameter explicitly explains catalogue versus own authored questions and the omit behavior. Since the input schema already carries the semantic weight, the description need not repeat parameter details. It does not, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List Questions' exactly restates the tool name and title, so it is tautological. It gives no scope, no filtering semantics, and no way to distinguish this tool from the many other list_* siblings (list_sessions, list_students, list_results). A minimally useful purpose statement would mention what questions are listed or how the catalogue relates to the org's own questions.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools, state when the source filter should be used, or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The useful usage context in the source parameter description is part of the input schema, not the tool description, so it does not count here.

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