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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing that the answers are 'published' (curated, not live-computed) and by explicitly stating what is NOT covered (freight, customs, warehousing, design), which prevents the agent from expecting answers that do not exist.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the long topic enumeration is dense but each item carries routing value. The trailing 'Optionally filter by a keyword' is second-position where it belongs.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description gives sufficient scope information — including negative scope — for an agent to call it correctly. Only the filter's match behavior (substring vs. semantic) is left unstated, a minor gap.

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 single query parameter's meaning is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description's 'optionally filter by a keyword' merely restates the parameter's optionality without adding matching semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (published FAQ answers) and enumerates the topic scope — scope, minimum order, payment, failed inspections, refunds, NDAs, samples, absences, non-offerings — so an agent knows exactly what content lives here. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_guides, which also returns content.

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?

Usage is only implied: the topic enumeration hints at when this tool answers a question, and 'optionally filter by a keyword' describes the filter's optionality rather than when to choose this over search_guides. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is stated.

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