get_custom_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the HTTP endpoint, the 404/NOT_FOUND failure mode, and the bearer-token authentication requirement. It omits pagination, rate limits, and what the returned object contains, but the error and auth disclosure is real value.

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?

Labeled sections (description, ENDPOINT, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION) make it skimmable and the core purpose is front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the section headers add slight overhead for a two-parameter read tool.

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?

Auth and the 404 path are covered, which suits a simple read, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a retrieved Custom Question contains. For a fetch tool whose return shape is undefined elsewhere, that is a noticeable gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format, path, or validation detail beyond them. 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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Custom Question') scoped by ID, and the endpoint line confirms the exact operation. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_default_question, so an agent must infer the custom/default distinction from the name alone.

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 versus list_custom_questions or get_default_question. The 'by ID' phrasing implies it fetches a known entity, but no alternatives or preconditions are named.

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