list_event_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states that it 'lists' questions. It does not disclose that the continuation parameter implies paginated results, whether disabled/inactive questions are included, or what happens when the event does not exist. The behavioral profile is essentially undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the documentation gaps it leaves open.

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 output schema covers return values, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations to lean on, the description should have explained the continuation/pagination behavior and at least acknowledged the parameters. For a two-parameter list tool with an undocumented pagination token, the definition is incomplete.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. event_id is inferable from the tool's context, but the continuation parameter (a pagination token) is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description. With zero schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and did not.

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 (List), resource (custom registration questions), and scope (for an event). The word 'custom' distinguishes it from the sibling list_event_canned_questions, and the plural 'list' contrasts with the get/create/delete question siblings. An agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening the schema.

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 scope 'for an event' implies when it applies, but the description provides no explicit exclusions or alternative routing. It does not say when to prefer get_event_question over this, nor mention list_event_canned_questions as the non-custom alternative. The usage context is fairly clear but entirely implicit.

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