Product questions and answers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral detail: answer-count cap, the answered_by taxonomy, 20 items per page, and 300-character truncation of long texts. These caveats materially affect how an agent interprets results.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core function and result shape front-loaded before the pagination/truncation caveats and the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers pagination, truncation and answer limits. Only minor gaps remain (empty-result behavior, no cross-reference to dk_reviews), which is enough for a 4 but not a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description's page-size note actually corrects the schema's mislabeled '20 products per page' to 20 questions per page, but it adds nothing about the sort enum or the product_id format beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (read) and resource (customers' questions about a product) and even bounds the payload ('up to 2 answers each'). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (dk_reviews), but an agent can still tell it apart by the resource noun.

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 context: 'Use for practical doubts (compatibility, size, registration).' That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or pointing at dk_reviews/dk_product as alternatives, so it isn't a 5.

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