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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does most of the work: it discloses the shape of the return (an actual resolution, not a keyword-matching passage) and, unusually, the semantics of an empty result set paired with a non-zero total, which prevents a false 'no material exists' conclusion. It omits any note on ranking, relevance thresholds, or what the match is keyed on beyond the customer's vocabulary, so it falls just short of fully documented 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the trigger, then the sibling contrast, then the edge case. Every sentence earns its place, and the ordering puts the decision-relevant information first.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, alternative routing, and return/empty-result semantics — the agent knows both how to call it and how to interpret a null result. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `problem` and `limit` are already documented in structured fields, and the description's 'pass their words through unchanged' restates the schema's own instruction about verbatim matching. It reinforces the critical constraint but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (find the resolution/answer) and a specific resource (question-and-answer pairs extracted from FAQ pages and installation guides), and explicitly contrasts the output against the `search` and `faq` siblings — it returns the fix, not a passage that merely mentions the part. An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It states a precise trigger — 'the moment a customer reports that something is wrong or does not work' — plus the question-answering case, and names the alternatives (`search`, `faq`) along with why they are inferior here. It even covers the negative outcome: an empty result with a non-zero total means the business has material that does not cover this, and that can be said plainly.

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