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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: results are filtered to answers mentioning the supplied keywords and default to whole-product scope when no template is given. It does not describe the response shape or behavior when no answers match.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the parenthetical topic lists help an agent understand what kinds of answers exist. The single dense sentence is efficient, though the long topic enumerations could be trimmed.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both calling modes, the default behavior, and the keyword filtering purpose. Nothing critical is missing, though the return format and no-match behavior are left implicit.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that template selects the scope and question acts as a keyword filter rather than a full question, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (FAQ answers) and two distinct scopes: one template (photos, length, sound, price, pets, face swap) or the whole product (price, refunds, privacy, account). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like how_to_make or list_templates, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 gives clear conditions for both modes: pass a template for template-specific answers, omit it for product-wide answers. It also explains how to narrow results with a few words in the question parameter. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or naming an alternative explicitly.

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