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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description's 'Search' is consistent with them. It adds modest context by limiting results to 'published' FAQs and noting optional text filtering, but it does not disclose further behavior such as pagination semantics or closed-world limitations. Those details are left to 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?

The entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and optional filter efficiently, earning every word.

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?

Given the rich input schema (all parameters documented, including city disambiguation, cursor pagination, and venue discovery via search_venues) and the presence of an output schema, the brief description is complete enough for invocation. It need not repeat return-value details. The only missing element is explicit sibling routing, which is a usage-guideline issue rather than a completeness gap.

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?

The input schema describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond mirroring the query ('text') and venue scope ('named venue'); all parameter details are already in the schema.

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 opening verb 'Search' names the action, and 'venue's published FAQs' names a specific resource that is distinct from sibling tools like destination_faq, venue_profile, and search_venues. The optional text-filter qualifier further narrows scope. An agent can tell this tool is for retrieving FAQ content of an already identified venue.

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 conveys the core use case—retrieve published FAQs for a named venue, optionally filtered—so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it offers no explicit routing guidance, such as 'use destination_faq for destination FAQs' or 'call search_venues first to resolve a venue.' Thus the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.

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