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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are published content rather than drafts and that filtering is optional, but says nothing about ordering, result count, or whether the full list is small enough to fetch unfiltered.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource stated first and the filtering behavior second; nothing is redundant or buried. It is arguably slightly under-sized for a tool with two parameters and no output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape; it implies question/answer pairs but never says whether these are returned as a list, whether the answer is rendered text or markup, or what an empty result looks like. For a simple read tool this is close to adequate but not complete.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the query terms match against either the question text or the answer text, which the schema's generic 'Words to look for' does not convey. The locale parameter's effect is left entirely to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 resource (the questions and answers published on the PolarJay FAQ page) and its scope, which is clearly recognizable against siblings like get_pricing or get_product. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource noun does the differentiating work.

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?

The word 'Optionally filtered' signals that calling with no parameters returns the full set and that the filter is a narrowing path, so usage is implied. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to an alternative tool for FAQ-adjacent questions.

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