list_default_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, read-only nature, or what 'include_all' does behaviorally (e.g., includes deleted/inactive questions?).

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint and auth. It efficiently conveys the essential information without wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but missing key context: what happens when event_id is invalid, whether results are paginated, and how include_all alters the response. The auth requirement is a good addition, but more behavioral detail would help.

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%, so both parameters (event_id, include_all) already have descriptions. The description adds a vague hint about include_all ('Return whole list included or not'), but the schema's 'Return all questions' is equally ambiguous. No syntax or default values are clarified.

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 (List) and resource (default Questions by Event), and the endpoint confirms the scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_default_question (single) and list_custom_questions (different resource type), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_custom_questions or get_default_question. The agent must infer usage from the name alone; there are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.

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