list_custom_questions

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 response shape (paginated array of questions), the 404 NOT_FOUND error condition, and the required Bearer auth. It leaves out pagination parameters/limits and what fields each question contains, so it is not exhaustive, but it discloses more than most.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose and organized into labeled sections (ENDPOINT, PARAMETERS, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION), which is easy to scan. It is slightly padded by the section headers for such a simple tool, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, pagination behavior, error case, and auth requirement, which covers what an agent needs to call it. The absence of return-field detail is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters; the description's note on as_owner ('Return private events and fields') merely restates the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate since it adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List custom Questions by Event' with the endpoint GET /events/{event_id}/questions/. This clearly distinguishes it from list_default_questions, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative. The 'custom' qualifier against siblings like list_default_questions is implied rather than spelled out.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the many question-related siblings (list_default_questions, get_custom_question, etc.). The 'by Event' phrasing implies the needed context (an event_id) but nothing about when this is the right tool over the default-question tools.

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