get_product_qa_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states it shows questions and supports filters but does not mention whether pagination applies, how the [query] placeholder works, what happens with missing parameters, or if it is read-only. Essential behavioral traits are omitted.

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 short but includes an unexplained '[query]' placeholder that may confuse agents. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but the bracket suggests incomplete content. Every sentence should be self-contained and clear.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (0 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how to effectively combine filters (e.g., date_from and date_to vs period). For a list-retrieval tool, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'filtros por periodo de tiempo' which aligns with the period, date_from, and date_to parameters, but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not clarify interactions between parameters or usage semantics.

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 states the resource (product questions) and action (view/list). It includes the relevant scope of supporting time period filters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_product_qa_faqs' or 'get_product_qa_stats' which also deal with product Q&A but with different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies its use for viewing product questions with filters, but lacks instructions on when not to use it or mentions of related tools. Agents may not know when to pick this over other product Q&A tools.

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