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 genuinely new behavior: questions are accepted in any language and each answer carries a source URL. It does not mention result limits or pagination, but for a static FAQ lookup that is minor.

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?

Front-loads the use case, then lists topics in a compact comma-separated run. The topic list is long but each item maps to a real user intent, and the actionable instruction (pass or omit the question) comes after it. Slightly list-heavy but no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still notes each answer has a URL. With only two optional params, the purpose, modes, and language handling are all covered; only the overlap with sibling tools remains unresolved.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the omit-for-all-FAQs behavior and the language enum. The description reinforces 'any language' and the omit mode but adds no syntax, matching, or fallback detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline.

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 clear verb ('call this') and a concrete resource (general FAQ answers about how Kanal Varna works), then enumerates the actual topics covered so an agent can pattern-match a user question to it. It stops short of naming siblings, and the listed topics ('prices in advance', 'areas', 'hours') overlap with get_prices and check_service_area, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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?

Gives a usable trigger ('general questions about how Kanal Varna works') plus two modes: pass a question to get best answers, or omit it to get all FAQs. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tools, so the agent must infer that specific price/area lookups should go to siblings.

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