List open questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a conceptual gloss of one category and says nothing about ordering, limits, pagination, or result volume — the behavioral gaps that annotations do not cover.

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 tight sentence with the primary category front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 simple, annotation-covered list tool with no output schema, the safety side is fine and return values needn't be explained. But the domain terms ('Atlas', 'frontier questions') and the filter's behavior are never elaborated, leaving an agent to guess at what a frontier question is or how results are organized.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It partially explains 'open-question' (evidence gaps with testable hypotheses) but leaves 'frontier' completely undefined, so half the enum is unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 names the resource (the Atlas's open and frontier questions) and glosses one category ('evidence gaps with testable hypotheses'), so an agent understands what comes back. However, it omits an explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_question or the various find_*/search_* tools.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer get_question or search_entities instead, or what the 'kind' filter is for. The presence of an enum parameter implies filtering but nothing tells the agent which value to pick or when to omit it.

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