list_answer_options

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait 'Read-only', which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about pagination, ordering guarantees (despite listing sort_order as a field), or volume, which matters for an unpaginated list across all questions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the read-only trait, then the field inventory. Two short sentences, no filler; the 'Read-only.' fragment is terse but effective.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete — the field list is somewhat redundant with the output schema, and pagination behavior is the only real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds nothing on parameters because there are none to describe.

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 ('List all demographic answer options') and pins the scope as 'across all questions', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_answer_options_for_question. It never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_answer_options_for_question or get_answer_option. The 'across all questions' scope hints at the distinction but the description offers no routing guidance or exclusions.

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