list_statistics_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read-only listing operation scoped to statistics-reporting-eligible questions and names the underlying OpenAPI endpoint. However, it does not describe response shape, pagination, permissions, or error behavior, so some behavioral ambiguity remains.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded. The OpenAPI endpoint detail is slightly implementation-focused but does not add meaningful clutter, and the description remains appropriately short for the tool's complexity.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-required-param list tool: the agent knows what it returns conceptually and what parameter is needed. However, because there is no output schema or annotations, the description should ideally clarify the return format and the role of the optional profile parameter; those gaps prevent a higher score.

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 50%, and the optional 'profile' parameter is left completely undocumented. The description's mention of 'questionnaireId/version query parameters' does not map cleanly to the actual MCP parameters ('questionnaire_identity' and 'profile'), and it does not explain the optional parameter or the identity format beyond what the schema already says.

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 precise action ('List questions') and a specific resource ('questions available to Survey Solutions statistics reporting for a questionnaire'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_statistics_questionnaires and list_questionnaires because the resource is explicitly 'questions' scoped to a single questionnaire.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the set of questions eligible for statistics reporting for a specific questionnaire. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the domain scoping is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly among the many sibling tools.

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