get_questions

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavior: buyer names are never returned, greetings with names are masked, dates are exact, and seller answers are flagged by_seller. The phrase 'One request' adds context but is ambiguous.

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 compact sentences carry meaningful information with the core resource stated first. There is no padding, though 'One request' is terse and could be more explicit.

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 a complete parameter schema and an output schema present, the description covers important behavioral quirks like privacy masking and exact dates. It lacks explicit usage guidance and leaves 'One request' open to interpretation, but is otherwise sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters fully (100%), including defaults, constraints, and an example value for product. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics; the by_seller mention concerns output rather than input.

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 identifies the resource clearly: buyers' questions about a card, with answers as shown on the site. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_reviews by topic, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or use a direct verb like 'returns'.

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 implies this tool is for buyer questions rather than reviews or offers, but it never states when to prefer it over get_reviews or when not to use it. There is no explicit context, exclusion, or alternative routing.

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