vibo_list_section_questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the response actually contains — question types, options, answered status, current answer text, and overall progress — which is meaningful behavioral context given there is no output schema. It does not discuss permissions or pagination.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the payload, the second defines the downstream usage. The resource scope is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the annotations cover safety. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool; only the exact shape/ordering of the returned list and progress value remains unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and both required parameters carry descriptions in the schema (including the pointer that sectionId comes from vibo_list_sections). The description's 'question _id and option _ids' references output identifiers consumed by a sibling tool rather than adding semantics to the two input parameters, 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 ('List the DJ's planning questions for a section') and enumerates the returned fields (type, options, answered state, current answer, progress). It also names the sibling vibo_answer_question that consumes the returned _ids, so an agent can distinguish it from other list tools without opening a schema.

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 supplies the workflow context: call this to obtain question _ids and option _ids, then pass them to vibo_answer_question. That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating when a different tool (e.g. vibo_list_sections) should be preferred first.

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