triviadb_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' does imply a non-mutating read, which is the one behavioral signal given, but there is nothing about the Open Trivia DB rate limit, whether auth is needed, or what the response contains — the description is thinner than a zero-annotation tool should be, though not misleading.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and its filter axes come first. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why usage and behavioral context are missing.

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 four optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the source and filters but does not explain the shape of a returned question (choices vs. true/false answer) or the default call behavior. Sibling disambiguation from 'trivia_questions' is also absent.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the default amount of 5 and max of 50. The description names category, difficulty, and type but adds no semantics beyond the schema (no ID ranges, no combining rules), 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 ('Get trivia questions from Open Trivia Database') plus the filter dimensions, so the action is unambiguous. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'trivia_questions' (nor 'trivia_categories'/'triviadb_categories'), leaving the agent to guess which of the two question fetchers to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of when this beats 'trivia_questions', no note that 'triviadb_categories' should be consulted first (that hint lives only in the schema param description), and no indication that all parameters are optional so a bare call returns defaults.

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