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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be safe and repeatable. The description adds the filtering-vs-full-fetch behavior and example topics, but does not state matching semantics or result shape; the added behavioral context is modest.

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?

One short sentence with inline examples; no redundant content, and the core retrieval modes are stated immediately.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter, read-only, idempotent nature of the tool, the description, schema, and annotations cover what is needed to call it correctly. The only minor omission is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling search/content tools.

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?

The input schema already documents frage as 'Suchbegriff oder Frage; leer für alle Einträge', and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces this and adds concrete example search terms, which slightly increases semantic clarity for an agent choosing a query.

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?

The description identifies the resource (the website's FAQ questions and answers) and the two retrieval modes: full list or filtered by search term. It is clear, but it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as website_durchsuchen.

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 description gives concrete invocation context: pass a search term such as GEO, Barrierefreiheit, or E-Commerce, or leave the parameter empty to retrieve everything. It does not say when to prefer this tool over website_durchsuchen or inhalt_abrufen, but the FAQ-specific scope makes the intended use reasonably explicit.

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