List questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the leading 'Read-only.' fragment largely repeats structured data. The pagination note adds mild behavioral context, but nothing is said about authorization scope, ordering of results, or what happens when no questions match.

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 tight sentences with the operation and filters front-loaded and no filler. The 'Read-only.' opener is a redundant fragment against the annotations, which is the only waste.

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 paginated read-only list tool with full schema coverage, no required parameters and complete annotations, the description covers scope, filters and pagination sufficiently. It omits result ordering and returned fields, but no output schema exists so some leeway is warranted.

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 every parameter (limit, offset, status enum, item_id) is already documented in the schema; the description only restates the same filtering and pagination semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('List buyer questions on the seller's items') plus the filtering dimensions (status, item), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling ml_answer_question. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with any sibling tool, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope and filter description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing advice relative to siblings like ml_get_item or ml_answer_question. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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