List Questions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' and 'optionally filtered' but does not mention pagination/limit behavior, account/site resolution, or what the response contains. Important operational traits are left undocumented.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with usable examples that add practical value without excessive verbosity. The phrasing is efficient, though the confusing 'unanswered' example keeps it from being excellent.

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 tool with no annotations and one nested input object, the description is incomplete: it does not explain limit/pagination behavior, output shape, how to combine filters, or account/site selection beyond the schema's own field descriptions. An agent would still have to infer several important details before calling it reliably.

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 top-level `input` parameter has no description, and the description does not compensate for that gap. It mentions item and status but omits `limit`, `account`, defaults, and status value constraints; the 'unanswered questions' example maps to `site_id`, which is misleading instead of demonstrating the `status` filter.

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?

The opening sentence, 'List questions asked about items, optionally filtered by item or status,' clearly states the action, resource, and key options. It is easy to distinguish from item CRUD siblings, though it never explicitly names a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage examples provide situational context ('Show me unanswered questions for my items', 'List questions about item MLU...'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like answer_question.

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