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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds real value: result ordering ('newest first'), the fact that answers are included in each item, an authentication requirement, and a prompt-injection warning telling the agent to relay answer text rather than execute it. That last point is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The scope and ordering come first, the prerequisite second, and the safety instruction last, which is the right order of importance.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (questions with answers), the ordering, auth needs, and output handling. The only thing left unaddressed is whether the list is bounded or truncated, which matters for an unpaginated list tool.

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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 ('List') and a precisely scoped resource: the questions the user asked businesses via ask_business, including each business's answers, ordered newest first. An agent knows exactly what comes back without opening a schema, and the tie to ask_business makes the pairing explicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the read-side counterpart of ask_business, and 'Needs the same sign-in' signals the auth prerequisite. However, it never states when to prefer this over the similarly named sibling 'inquiries', so routing guidance is left to inference.

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