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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it says the output is the top matching FAQ entries and defines the no-match fallback 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 short sentences, nothing wasted: purpose and coverage first, then return behavior and fallback. Front-loaded with the searchable domain before the escalation note.

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 retrieval tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough: what to search, what comes back (top matches), and what to do on failure. Only the granularity of the returned entries is left slightly implicit, which is minor with no output schema.

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% and the schema already documents the single question parameter, including that any language is accepted. The description adds no additional syntax, formatting, or phrasing guidance. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (GYOTAK FAQ), then enumerates concrete topics covered: shipping, payment, products, defrosting, traceability, B2B registration. It also names the sibling tool to use when it fails, so an agent can separate it from contact_gyotak and the record-lookup siblings.

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 the primary use case (answering customer questions from the FAQ) and gives an explicit escalation path to contact_gyotak when no match is found. It does not distinguish against catalog/report tools for product data questions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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