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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the default result ceiling (five answers), notes the tool works without a query, and warns that 'Take A Load Off' answers describe a separate wash-and-fold partner lacking prices, turnaround or phone details — a substantive caveat about answer quality that no structured field conveys.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and topic scope, then result-count behavior, then the language switch — each carrying distinct information. The middle sentence about 'Take A Load Off' is slightly convoluted in phrasing and could be tightened, but it is not filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting needn't be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, defaults, optional-query browsing and language selection, leaving only minor gaps such as how results are ordered or what happens when no answer matches a query.

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 schema already documents the limit default/maximum, the query's nonblank-word semantics and browse-by-omission behavior, and the en/es enum. The description's restatements ('up to five answers by default', 'use language es') largely duplicate the schema rather than adding new meaning beyond the baseline of 3.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('The site's FAQ answers') and enumerates the covered topics (hours, prices, machines, payment, ATM, WiFi, troubleshooting), so an agent can tell it performs free-text FAQ lookup rather than structured retrieval. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with similarly themed siblings such as get_pricing or get_location_hours, which would make the boundary 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?

'Returns up to five answers by default, with or without a query' implies both search and browse modes, and the language sentence tells the agent how to reach Spanish content. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_pricing, get_machines, or get_payment_methods, which cover overlapping topics with structured data — the agent must infer that FAQ is the fallback for narrative answers.

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