list_answer_options_for_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose 'Read-only' — a genuinely useful trait. However it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or whether an empty list is returned for questions with no options, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite note following. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, and the ID prerequisite. Only minor behavioral details (pagination/empty results) are absent, which the output schema partly compensates for.

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 parameter is already documented as 'Demographic question ID — get from list_questions'. The description's ID-sourcing note largely restates the schema, so 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 (list) plus resource (answer options) scoped to 'a specific demographic question', which implicitly separates it from the unfiltered sibling list_answer_options. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than spelled out.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisite guidance for obtaining question_id, naming two specific sibling tools (list_questions, list_questions_for_question_set). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_answer_options or get_answer_option, so no explicit exclusion is offered.

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