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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that answers are limited to 'approved Q&As', returned verbatim with sources and approval status, and that unmatched questions surface an available_questions list. The coverage tri-state semantics tell the agent exactly how to interpret partial matches.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then return semantics, then the prerequisite, which is the right order. The enumeration of coverage values is dense but each clause carries information an agent needs; the only cost is a long single-sentence chain.

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, and the description fully compensates by describing returned fields and the coverage field's three states including the recovery path via available_questions. With the prerequisite and behavior on no-match covered, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions of business_id, question, and language are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the question parameter is interpreted for multi-intent inputs and how that yields 'partial' coverage, which the schema does not convey.

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 a free-text question about one business') and immediately describes what comes back (best-matching approved Q&As verbatim with sources and approval status). This is clearly distinct from siblings like search_business and get_profile, which find or return profiles rather than answering questions against one.

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 the key sequencing rule: 'Use the business id from search_business,' which tells the agent how to obtain the required identifier. It does not state when to prefer get_profile over a free-text question, so a full when/when-not comparison is absent.

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