questions_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that the return format is markdown, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as error handling or empty results. This meets the baseline with some added value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the action, resource, and required contextual input. Every word is essential, and there is no wasted 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 tool with one well-documented parameter and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and return format. It does not explain edge cases like invalid slugs or network issues, but such details are reasonably expected from the schema and annotations.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, including a pattern and example, so the description does not need to add param details. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the meaning effectively.

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 ('get'), identifies the resource ('interview questions markdown'), and specifies the input ('question-group slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like questions_list, which presumably lists groups rather than retrieving a specific one.

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 implies usage: it is for fetching the markdown for a specific known slug. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over questions_list or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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