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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, it discloses an authentication requirement (owners only, sign-in), a temporal bound (last 30 days), the direction split of results, and a privacy rule ('Customers' contact details stay private until they book'). That is meaningful context the annotations do not carry; only pagination/result-limit behavior is left unstated.

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?

Scope and the owner-only constraint are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence contributes either scope, result content, next action, or a privacy caveat. The second sentence is long and compound, packing four result fields into one clause, which slightly reduces scanability.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: the described job, the firm price, whether the ZIP is served, and owner notes for received inquiries. For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only result volume/paging is unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds semantic value by naming 'inquiry_id' as the identifier the agent must pass to message_customer, linking this tool's output to a sibling's input.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List questions customers and other businesses asked this business') and splits the result set into received vs sent directions, which an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'my_inquiries', leaving a possible ambiguity between the two inquiry-listing tools.

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 a clear usage context ('Owners only (needs sign-in)') and explicitly routes the follow-up action: 'Answer open received ones with message_customer and the inquiry_id'. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over sibling list tools such as my_inquiries, or when close_inquiry applies, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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