suggest_questions_suggest_questions_post

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the number of questions (3) and input context, but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or validation responses beyond the 422 schema.

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?

The description is short but includes verbose OpenAPI response details (200, 422 schemas) that bloat the definition. It is not efficiently concise and could be streamlined.

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?

The description mentions success and error responses, but the success output schema is empty, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. It does not explain how the 3 questions are returned (e.g., as a list). This is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description mentions 'query and leader specialty' aligning with schema, but does not add new meaning or examples beyond schema for parameters.

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 clearly states it suggests 3 contextual follow-up questions based on query and leader specialty. This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like ask or search.

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?

The description implies usage (when follow-up questions are needed) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusion criteria provided.

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