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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the side effect on the listing, the emitted events (question.asked / question.answered), the specific error codes for each refusal case, a daily rate limit (60/profile), the return shape, and the untrusted free-text handling. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and dense but mostly non-redundant; every sentence carries usage, behavior, error, or limit information. The backtick-heavy run-on style is terse to the point of being hard to scan, costing a little structure.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the reply (question_id, asker, answer: null until answered) and the async answer path. Combined with errors, rate limit, and idempotency, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 75% and the schema already documents visibility, question, and idempotency_key. The description reinforces the visibility semantics and adds meaning the schema lacks — that question is the sole free text and is quarantined under _untrusted — which is real value for the trust boundary.

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 and resource ('Ask the seller of a listing a question before buying') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling getQuestions by telling the agent to check it first. An agent can identify the tool 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (before buying), names the alternative (getQuestions) and the condition that prefers it ('a public answer may already be there'), and surfaces the cases where the call is refused (own/paused/deleted listing). Routing is unambiguous.

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