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 fully covered. The description adds that only published FAQs are searched and notes the upstream host alias (get_venue_faq), which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose pagination or ordering behavior, though the output schema and parameter descriptions partially cover that.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose before adding the alias context. There is minor redundancy with the schema's query parameter ('optionally filtered by text'), but the sentence remains compact and readable. The parenthetical about the venue host's name adds useful cross-reference context without bloating the description.

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 search tool with rich annotations, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description is almost complete for selection and invocation. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like destination_faq or get_venue. Overall, an agent can correctly select and call this tool with the provided information.

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 all five parameters are fully documented with types, defaults, constraints, and helper guidance like 'call search_venues'. The description's phrase 'optionally filtered by text' adds no new parameter meaning beyond the query field already documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Search a named venue's published FAQs') and adds the optional text-filter behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_venue or destination_faq by focusing on venue FAQs for a named venue. The title 'Venue FAQ by name' reinforces the same clear scope.

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 the tool: when you want a named venue's published FAQs, optionally filtered by text. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving sibling differentiation to inference. This meets the bar for implied usage guidance but lacks explicit routing.

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