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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it "Returns the best matching questions and answers," which usefully reveals the return shape in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about match quality, coverage limits, or empty-result behavior.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return behavior second. Every phrase earns its place by scoping the searchable content.

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 one-parameter, read-only FAQ lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns (matching Q&A pairs). It is nearly complete; only minor behavioral details like result count or no-match handling are absent.

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 single 'query' parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's topic enumeration (shipping, customs, IOSS, labels, returns, accounts) marginally helps an agent choose query terms but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 ("Search") and resource ("SAMOS help centre (FAQs)") and enumerates the topics covered (shipping, customs, IOSS, labels, returns, accounts). This clearly separates it from the action-oriented siblings (estimate_duties, estimate_shipping_price, list_destinations, track_parcel), which compute or fetch operational data rather than answer questions.

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 — an agent can infer this is for answering user questions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to reach for it, and no routing to sibling tools (e.g., use estimate_duties instead when the user wants a computed figure). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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