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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the verbatim return style, optional filtering behavior, scope limitations, and the no-match behavior ('says so rather than guessing'). This is strong coverage, though it does not mention auth, rate limits, or exact response shape.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first states exactly what is returned, the second explains optional filtering, and the third routes to siblings and sets no-match expectations. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers content scope, filtering behavior, exclusions, sibling routing, and failure behavior. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the text alone.

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%, so the schema already documents the query parameter. The description adds useful semantic context: the search term filters to matching pairs and the tool explicitly handles no-match cases, going slightly beyond the schema's bare description.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('general Intune Ready FAQ from the homepage'), and enumerates the content areas. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming what it does not cover.

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 explicit routing guidance: use get_partner_channel for MSPs/contractors and get_cloud_pc_offering for Windows 365/Azure Virtual Desktop. It also clarifies that this tool does not cover other published FAQs, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose it.

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