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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an approval gate before invocation and a data-integrity rule ("Preserve exact numbers and policy facts"), which is exactly the kind of value-add expected when annotations are present.

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 zero waste: the operation, the integrity constraint, and the approval workflow, in that priority order. Nothing is repeated from the schema 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema mutation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the two things structured fields can't: the approval requirement and the factual-precision constraint. It stops short of stating failure behavior (unknown questionId, mismatch between agentId and businessProfileId beyond what the schema says), leaving a small gap.

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% and the per-parameter descriptions already explain questionId sourcing, agentId/businessProfileId fallback, and the answer format. The description's only added signal is "by questionId," which restates the schema rather than extending it, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Replace the answer to one Business Profile question") and scopes it precisely by questionId, which cleanly separates it from business_qa_create/delete/list. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

"update each question separately" rules out batching and "Show the new answer and get explicit approval before calling" gives a concrete pre-call workflow. What's missing is guidance on when to use this versus business_qa_create (e.g. when the questionId doesn't exist yet), but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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