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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: matching happens across both question and answer text, results include answers that discourage the work (an unusual content trait), and omitting the query returns a grouped full listing rather than an error.

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, each doing distinct work: what it searches, why it beats the alternative, and what the empty-query mode returns. Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of 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?

A single optional parameter with full schema coverage plus an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers matching scope, alternative routing, and the degenerate no-query case — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema field already explains that it matches against question and answer and that leaving it out returns everything. The description restates that behavior rather than adding new syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the questions clients actually ask') and immediately distinguishes the resource from sibling content like the service pages. The phrase 'written answers' clarifies the return type, so an agent can tell this apart from search_services or get_service without opening a schema.

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?

'Prefer this over guessing from the service pages' gives an explicit selection rule relative to an alternative. It also covers the no-argument mode ('Omit the query to get every question grouped by service'), but does not name when another sibling (e.g. what_is_not_offered) would be the better pick.

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