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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns 'answers from the published FAQ' and factual policy pages (with 'the page carrying the binding version'), which is useful. However, it doesn't specify whether it's a safe read-only operation or any limits on query scope.

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?

A single focused, front-loaded paragraph with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place: the subject enumeration, the example query usage, and the usage directive.

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 lookup tool with a simple 2-param schema and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what each topic returns and directs the user to authoritative policy pages. It could note which topic is most relevant for typical customers, but this is minor given the clarity.

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% with both params described. The description adds value by clarifying what the 'topic' values return (FAQ answers, tool explanations, page lists, policy facts) and gives an example for 'query'. This meaningfully extends beyond the bare enum labels.

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?

Highly specific description: 'Look up how Printing Labs actually works' with enumerated subjects (FAQ, in-house tools, public pages, policies) and named tools (Mockup Studio, Brand Stores, etc.). This sharply distinguishes it from siblings like get-product-details or list-catalogs, which cover different domains.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this instead of guessing when a customer asks...' and names the tool list ('tools', 'pages', 'policies'). The description gives clear 'when to use' guidance (customer questions about company operations) and implicitly distinguishes from product/detail tools among siblings.

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