questions

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the two behavioral facts that matter — results are filtered to unresolved questions and grouped by initiative — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no initiative is supplied.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint leads. It is arguably too terse for a three-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 three-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what include_implementation changes, how ref and collection interact, and what the grouped output looks like. Read-only annotations cover safety only, not the retrieval semantics.

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 only 33%: 'ref' is documented, but 'collection' and 'include_implementation' have no descriptions anywhere. The phrase 'grouped by initiative' loosely maps to 'ref', but the description does not explain include_implementation (the least self-evident parameter) or the relationship between ref and collection, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the specific resource and scope: 'Unresolved open questions, grouped by initiative.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like next_question, add_question, and resolve_question, which act on single questions. It omits an explicit verb (list/retrieve), so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as next_question and resolve_question operating on the same domain, the agent gets no help deciding when to call this aggregate view instead.

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