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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the behavioral detail that only published FAQs are returned, and that filtering by pillar or search text is supported, going beyond the structured annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states what the tool does and its key optional filters. No wasted words.

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 listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior and filters. It omits details like limit and return structure, but the simplicity and annotations make it sufficient for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of 'pillar' and 'q' (search text), but does not mention the 'limit' parameter, leaving a gap for one of three parameters.

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 states the tool lists published FAQs from the Jenesis CMS, with optional filters. The verb 'list' and resource 'FAQs' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools (journeys, budget, company, enquiry).

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 clearly indicates this is for retrieving published FAQs, and mentions optional filters for pillar and search text. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tools are obviously different in purpose, providing clear context.

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