get_questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: answers are marked for expert/brand authorship and purchase status, and author names are never returned. This privacy constraint and marker behavior are valuable context not present in the annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: the core resource and grouping are stated first, followed by useful behavioral details about markers and privacy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation 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 read-only tool with a rich output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is returned, how it is grouped, and important privacy behavior. It does not explicitly state that results are scoped to the provided product, but the required product parameter and the nature of the tool make that sufficiently clear.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as customer questions with their answers, grouped into threads, which distinguishes it from review or product tools in substance if not by explicit naming. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not name sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the resource type: this tool returns customer Q&A for a product, and the required product parameter reinforces that. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_reviews or 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.