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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real context beyond them: the returned items pair each question with its current answer and ID, and the ID is what feeds the create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of mentioning ordering, pagination, or what an empty profile looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The core action and its payoff (current answer plus ID) are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences are pure routing to the three relevant siblings. No redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some of that load by naming the returned fields (question, current answer, ID), and the schema handles the identifier and failure paths. It is nearly complete for a simple listing tool, though an agent must still discover ordering and pagination behavior at call time.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the meaningful cases: agentId uses its attached profile and must match businessProfileId if both are supplied, an agent with no profile fails and should be fixed via updateAgent, and omitting both falls back to the default business. The description adds little parameter-level meaning of its own beyond noting that IDs come from this listing, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'List every Business Profile question with its current answer and ID' — and immediately defines what a question is (hours, services, pricing, location, policies). That level of detail lets an agent distinguish this from business_qa_list_profiles and knowledge_list_pages without opening any 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 gives explicit ordering guidance ('call it before business_qa_create, business_qa_update or business_qa_delete to see what exists and get the IDs') and routes two alternatives by condition: business_qa_list_profiles for multi-business workspaces, knowledge_list_pages for longer documents. Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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