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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the two-mode response shape, where the no-slug call yields every question with its slug and result count, which is what an agent needs to bootstrap the slug parameter. It does not mention rate limits or truncation, but nothing suggests those exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the alias identity and client scope, then the resource with examples, then the mode behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the two example questions are somewhat redundant with each other and could have been compressed.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly spends its words on the alias relationship and mode switching. An agent can call this correctly from the description alone. The one residual gap is routing guidance versus non-alias siblings like search_places, which the description does not address.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic contract of slug: omitting it enumerates available slugs, supplying it scopes results to one question. That is meaning the schema's "Question slug from the list" does not fully convey. limit/offset/response_format are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate.

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 (browse ready-made answered question lists, listing places per question) and identifies itself as an alias of dogpolicies_browse_answers, so an agent can map it to the canonical tool. The parenthetical examples of question types make the resource concrete. It stops short of a fully self-contained identity because the real semantics live in the named sibling.

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?

"Alias of dogpolicies_browse_answers, kept for older clients" gives a clear selection rule against the sibling: use the canonical name for new work, this one for legacy clients. It also covers the two calling modes (no slug = list all questions with slugs and counts; with slug = return that question's places). It does not distinguish this from search_places or near, which also answer place questions.

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