get_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose 'Read-only', which is the most important trait for a fetch tool, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or missing ID, permissions, or scoping. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the ID-sourcing hint immediately after. No filler or restatement of the schema.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, an output schema that covers return values, and an explicit read-only statement, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the absence of error/permission behavior keeps it from a 5.

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 100% and the single question_id parameter is documented with its own 'get from list_questions' note, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource with added specificity beyond the name ('Get a demographic question by ID'), so an agent knows it fetches one record rather than a list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_questions, but the ID-based retrieval makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required input by pointing at list_questions and list_questions_for_question_set, which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs before calling. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer list_questions over this), keeping it 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.