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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that answers are published and multilingual, which implies a read-only retrieval operation and gives useful content expectations. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or errors, but for such a simple FAQ lookup the provided context is reasonably sufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core scope is front-loaded, and the multilingual note is placed after, making the structure easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus schema is nearly complete: it explains what the tool returns, the optional location filter, and language variants. It does not describe the exact response shape, but that is not critical for such a straightforward FAQ endpoint.

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%, and the parameter is fully documented as 'Location slug; omit for the general questions.' The description only restates the optional narrowing behavior without adding new parameter-level detail, so it appropriately falls at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as published questions and answers about Floreal Holidays and notes optional location narrowing, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' but it is still distinct from sibling tools such as get_menu, get_stay_price, and list_locations.

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 provides clear context: this tool serves FAQ content about Floreal Holidays and can be limited to a specific location through an optional parameter. It does not explicitly discuss when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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