Get unanswered story questions

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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint present, the description does not need to restate safety. It does add a behavioral filter: only unanswered questions are returned, and it frames results as interview prompts. However, this largely restates the tool name and does not disclose additional behavior like result ordering or what happens when no questions are available.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope, then adds a memorable use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 read-only tool with one documented parameter and helpful annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and why someone would use it. No output schema exists, but the return concept is clear enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 already documents personName with 100% coverage (family member name/relationship, fuzzy, or 'me'). The description does not add parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the schema coverage; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Story questions about a family member that nobody has answered yet') and immediately clarifies the exact scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_life_story or get_recent_family_activity by focusing on unanswered story questions for interview prep.

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 phrase 'perfect for "what should I ask Grandpa when I visit" interview prep' provides a clear use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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