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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the content is published, and answers may appear in Dutch, French, and English, which prepares the agent for multilingual output without contradicting the safety hints.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the multilingual detail earns its place 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 simple read-only FAQ lookup with one optional parameter, annotations cover safety, the schema covers parameters, and the description covers scope and output language characteristics. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter (domain) is already described as a location slug with omission meaning general questions. The description's phrase 'optionally narrowed to one location' reinforces the schema but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond it.

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 identifies the resource as published questions and answers about Floreal Holidays, with the option to narrow by location. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_menu or search_stays, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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—for FAQ content, optionally filtered to a location—but does not state when to prefer an alternative tool or explicitly contrast with siblings. The schema adds the 'omit for the general questions' guidance, which helps parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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