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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Published' hints that unpublished/draft FAQs are excluded, which is useful and non-obvious, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits for a list-returning tool.

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 fragments, front-loaded with resource then modifier. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 simple read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least note ordering/pagination or the safe read-only nature. The 'published' scope is the only behavioral insight provided.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single well-described 'query' param, the schema already does the work. The description only restates that the filter is optional and targets questions or answers, adding little 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 resource (published FAQ Q&A) and what is returned, distinguishing it from siblings like get_blog or get_contact by resource type. However it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search', which overlaps on the keyword-filter behavior.

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?

Implies usage (retrieve FAQs, optionally filter by keyword) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling 'search' tool, which is the most likely ambiguity given both do keyword matching.

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