chewy_product_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned fields (text, author, date, staff flag, helpful count) exactly, explains that answers_total allows truncation detection, and calls out that questions are shared across variants. It doesn't explicitly mention rate limits or credential needs, but for a read-only list endpoint this level of detail is strong. One minor gap: it doesn't say what happens with an invalid id or out-of-range page, but those are not severe.

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 description is written in five sentences, each delivering distinct information: purpose, distinction from a sibling, id semantics, answers_total field, and lack of sort/filter. No redundancy or irrelevant filler. It is slightly longer than the minimum, but every sentence earns its place. A perfect score would require even more economy, but this is quite tightly written.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the needed context: return content, paging behavior, truncation flag, and variant sharing. The schema already documents parameter ranges and defaults, so those don't need repetition. It may not state default page/limit, but those are in the schema. Overall, this description provides a complete mental model for the tool's intended use.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that id is the numeric id from any chewy.com PDP URL, and that questions are shared across variants so any variant's id returns the same set. It also explains answer_limit truncation detection via answers_total, which is not in the schema. This exceeds the baseline for full coverage.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool does: 'List a Chewy product's customer questions and answers, paginated.' It specifies the resource, the action, and that it returns paged data. It also differentiates itself from chewy_product by explaining that it reaches the whole question set rather than just the first 20 embedded questions, so an agent can pick between them.

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 explicitly contrasts with chewy_product: 'chewy_product embeds only the first 20 questions with no way to page past them; this endpoint reaches the whole set.' This tells the agent when to use this tool instead of the sibling. It also explains the id semantics (any PDP URL id, shared across variants) and notes that no sort/filter exists, so the endpoint is only for paged retrieval.

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