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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining the data source (daily checks) and that each result carries a page URL, which substitutes for the absent output schema. It does not mention result volume, ordering, or whether a metro with no coverage returns empty, so it stops short of fully rich.

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?

Usage routing is front-loaded, and the tail sentence redirects to the sibling. The middle enumeration of question types is long, but each item plausibly helps an agent pattern-match a user query, so it largely earns its space rather than padding.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, this covers what to call it with, what comes back (questions plus URLs), and when not to use it. Absent an output schema, only minor details like empty-result behavior are 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 100% and the single location parameter already enumerates every metro slug, so the description cannot add much mechanically. It does reinforce the constraint that exactly one covered metro is in scope ('one covered metro'), which is a small but real clarification; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Returns the questions Aisles answers from its daily checks') scoped to one metro, and explicitly contrasts scope with the sibling search_products. An agent can distinguish list_answers from search_products without opening either 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?

It states when to use it ('broad questions about one covered metro rather than one product'), enumerates concrete question categories that qualify (stores at a mall, brand availability, sale items, curbside pickup, chain price comparisons), and names the exclusion plus the alternative: 'For a specific product, use search_products instead.'

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