get_customer_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is read-only, explains the default status behavior, enumerates allowed status values, describes pagination semantics, and explicitly notes that customer user names are not included. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only list endpoint.

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 well-structured with an opening purpose sentence, a compact Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence carries useful information, and the most important scope information is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter read-only list tool, this description covers defaults, allowed values, pagination, return fields, and an explicit exception (user names excluded). An agent has everything needed to select the tool and invoke it correctly without consulting additional documentation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: status is expanded with all five allowed values and the meaning of the default, page is defined as zero-based, and size is given a maximum of 50. This adds meaningful semantics that the bare schema properties lack.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List customer questions about the store's products.' It immediately identifies the operation as read-only, which clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like answer_question and update_price_and_stock.

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 makes clear this is a listing tool for customer questions and is read-only, providing clear context for when an agent would choose it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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