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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the side effect: a product_questions record identical to the web form is created on behalf of the authenticated caller. It also adds the required Authorization Bearer header and clarifies the tool's boundary—no drafting or sending an answer—which are meaningful behavioral facts not visible in the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it does not do, and the auth requirement. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential context: auth header, side effect, public nature, and tool boundaries. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%: both product_id and question already have detailed descriptions, including the 500-character cap and UUID format. The description repeats the 500-character cap but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the verb ('Submits'), the resource ('public question about a product listing'), and the actor ('authenticated caller'), and ties it to the same record the web form creates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like questions.list, which is a read operation.

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?

It clearly establishes this tool is for asking, not answering: the seller answers on the Resollo web UI and this tool does not draft or send an answer. It does not explicitly name a sibling for the read workflow, but the context is clear enough that an agent knows when to use this tool.

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