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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that the whole set returns in one call, that there is nothing to filter by, and that re-calling is unnecessary — genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are minor for a static read.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns and its scope, then the routing rules — a sensible order. It is somewhat dense in the middle (field-by-field return description plus a long topic list), but every sentence carries information the agent needs. Minor trimming of the topic enumeration would tighten it without loss of correctness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned collection and its `question`, `answer`, and `page` fields. Combined with the explicit when-to-use routing and the no-argument note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating there is nothing to filter by, which correctly sets the agent's expectation that no arguments can narrow the result set.

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+resource (read the FAQ) and defines the exact corpus: every question answered on the WearableDocs FAQ and the Medical & Legal FAQ, with the topical scope spelled out (enforceability, refusing vaccines and blood, brain death, organ procurement). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_state and search_site by naming both as different tools for different questions.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use this for a general question about how refusals work, use get_state when the question names a jurisdiction, and use search_site for topics these questions do not reach. It also tells the agent what to do with the result (pick the closest question from the list) and explicitly says not to call again, which is actionable usage guidance.

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