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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful payload context (the questions asked of AIs, price expressed in A$) but says nothing about auth, error behaviour, or what happens if trade is omitted or invalid.

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?

One sentence is appropriately short, but the phrasing 'our trade for it' is cryptic and not front-loaded around an action verb. It is compact without being clear.

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 2-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description does convey what comes back, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It still leaves routing versus get_report and the trade-fallback behaviour entirely to the 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the trade fallback to list_trades. The description's 'our trade for it' and 'for one business' loosely map to the params but add no syntax or constraint detail 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 lists the payload contents (business details, trade, report questions, price) for one business, but never states the verb clearly and the name 'get_questions' undersells what is actually returned. An agent could confuse this with get_report, and the description does nothing to distinguish 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the schema's own 'From find_business' note, and no mention of how this differs from get_report or ask_about_report. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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