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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the alias context ('the destination's own host calls this get_faq') and the optional text filter, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or that cursor is a skip-based cursor. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the optional filter and the alias note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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 read-only, idempotent search tool with a rich output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only missing context is explicit pagination behavior (cursor as skip) and any note about result ordering, but the schema's cursor description already covers the skip mechanism. The alias note adds useful real-world context.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the alias context and the notion of filtering by text, which maps to the query parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('a named destination's FAQs'), and an optional filter ('by text'). It also distinguishes itself from the destination's own host call ('get_faq'), which helps an agent understand this is a wrapper/alias. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like venue_faq and search_destinations.

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 implies when to use it: when you need FAQs for a named destination, optionally filtered by text. It also notes the destination's host calls it get_faq, which is a useful alias. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like venue_faq for venue FAQs, so it falls just short of a 5.

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