get_question_set

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 genuinely helpful for a fetch tool, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., unknown ID), permissions, or whether the set includes questions. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the ID-sourcing hint follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it returns, that it is read-only, and where the ID comes from. Only minor behavioral detail (error handling, permissions) is absent, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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% for the single parameter, which already documents "Question set ID — get from list_question_sets." The description restates the same ID-sourcing point, adding no format or type meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a demographic question set by ID") and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_question_sets. The scope is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly frame the contrast beyond pointing at the list tool for IDs.

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?

"To find IDs: list_question_sets" is useful procedural guidance on sourcing the required argument, but the description never states when to use this tool versus the list or other question-related siblings. Usage is largely implied by the name.

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