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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description goes far beyond, detailing error responses (conflict, forbidden, not_found), idempotency key behavior, the event sent to the asker, public visibility of exchanges, and the _untrusted marking. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes value: purpose, prerequisites, error codes, idempotency, and visibility. It is front-loaded with the main action and then systematically covers details. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but structure is logical and effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return format ('Reply is the question with its answer'), covers error scenarios, side effects (events, listing visibility), and trust boundaries. It leaves nothing essential ambiguous for an agent to call it correctly.

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 67%, with question_id lacking a description. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'answer' is the seller's text, while question and asker.name come from the asker, and thoroughly explains idempotency_key semantics including secret replay behavior. It enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 clearly identifies the tool as answering a question on a listing, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask (which asks questions) and getQuestions (which retrieves them) by describing its exact action and error conditions.

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?

It explicitly states prerequisites (API key, seller only) and when to use (for questions from events or getQuestions). It also lists constraints like one answer per question and that answering others' listings is forbidden, guiding correct usage and preventing misuse.

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