List captured AI answers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering behavior ('newest first by default') and the accepted date format, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about pagination or result limits.

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 tight sentences with the resource description front-loaded, followed by filters and the alternative-tool note. No filler, though the field enumeration could be marginally tighter.

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 no output schema, the description usefully outlines what a record contains and how filtering/ordering works. It is close to complete for invocation, with pagination controls the main remaining gap.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains engine, trackedQueryId and date filtering plus the YYYY-MM-DD format and default sort direction. limit, offset, sortOrder asc and organizationId/projectId are left undocumented.

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+resource ('AI answers captured for a project's tracked queries') and enumerates the returned fields (answer text, engine, capture time, cited sources). It also explicitly separates itself from aggregate tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_mention_samples or get_query_movers without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition ('read what an engine actually said') and an explicit exclusion ('for aggregates use the metric tools'). It does not name a specific sibling metric tool, so routing is directional rather than precise.

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