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

readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, and the description adds genuine value beyond it: the negative scope list tells the agent this tool will never surface tenant, clinical, or billing data, which is useful for deciding where to route sensitive queries. It stops short of describing caching, freshness, or the canonical-source behavior of the topic param.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a high-value boundary statement. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus the negative scope list cover the safety profile. For a zero-required-param, single-optional-param read tool this is nearly complete; only sibling routing is absent.

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 single optional 'topic' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about how topic is matched or whether it filters versus merely contextualizes results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the canonical public CloudMedico FAQ page.' An agent can tell it apart from get_product_overview, get_pricing, and get_features, though no sibling is named 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?

The description implies usage by defining the public FAQ scope and listing what it does NOT touch (account, tenant, clinical, patient, registration, billing, chatbot data), but it never states when to pick this over search_public_knowledge or the other overview tools.

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