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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world). The description adds valuable context about what is returned: open and recent requests with details such as what was asked, when, where it stands, and the business's reply. It does not specify pagination or limits, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with little waste. The first sentence front-loads the resource and its contents; the second gives usage context. The first sentence is slightly dense but still easily parsed.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains purpose, usage, and return content. It omits pagination or result limits, but otherwise provides what an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description implies filtering by business or all businesses, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it retrieves the user's open and recent requests (questions, quotes, samples, documents, complaints) and what they contain (what was asked, when, where it stands, business's reply). It distinguishes the resource from siblings like get_documents by indicating a broader status view, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 says 'Use it when the user asks whether a business has answered or what is pending,' giving a clear usage scenario. It does not state when to use other tools or when not to use this one, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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