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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'no authentication required' plus a meaningful behavioral detail: answer/answered_at are null for unanswered questions. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent interpret results, though it does not discuss pagination or potential limits.

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 concise sentences with no filler: behavior is front-loaded, then edge cases, then usage scenarios, then auth note. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema available, this description is complete: it tells the agent what it returns, what nulls mean, when to use it, and that no authentication is needed. No critical context is 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with productId already described as 'The product listing's uuid.' The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond using the phrase 'product listing', so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Returns every question asked about a product listing') on a clear resource (product Q&A), including the key detail that seller answers are included where they exist. It distinguishes itself from siblings like questions.ask by framing this as retrieving past buyer questions, and from reviews.list by focusing on Q&A rather than reviews.

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?

The description gives explicit use cases: check what past buyers asked before asking a new question, or before advising a buyer. This effectively routes an agent to this tool versus asking a new question, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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