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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that it returns top matching FAQ entries and suggests contact_gyotak on no match. The read-only nature is implied by 'Search' but not made explicit; still, the success and fallback behaviors are clearly stated.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words: the main action is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and the fallback instruction. Every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 FAQ lookup with full schema coverage, the description covers the core invocation, return type ('top matching FAQ entries'), and the no-match path. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the return description, though exact formatting or count of matches is left unspecified.

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 schema already describes 'question' as 'Question text (any language)', so the baseline applies. The description's topic list adds context about content areas but not about the parameter's format or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search GYOTAK FAQ') and lists concrete topic areas, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explicitly contrasts with contact_gyotak by funneling no-match cases to that sibling, which sharpens differentiation.

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 clear context: use this tool for FAQ lookup on the listed topics. It explicitly names contact_gyotak as the escalation alternative when no match is found. However, it does not distinguish from other search-oriented siblings like search_fish, leaving some when-to-use guidance implicit.

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