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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail about full vs. filtered retrieval and provides example search terms, but does not describe response format or edge cases. This adds modest value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is one short sentence (~18 words), front-loaded with the subject and purpose. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only FAQ lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior: it returns the FAQs and answers, either full or filtered. It doesn't explain pagination or sorting, but the simplicity and annotations make it sufficient.

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%, with the parameter 'frage' documented as 'Suchbegriff oder Frage; leer für alle Einträge.' The description reiterates this and gives examples, but doesn't substantially add meaning beyond what the schema already 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 'suchen' (search) with a clear resource 'häufigen Fragen und Antworten' (FAQs and answers). It clearly distinguishes between returning all entries or filtering by a search term. No sibling tool covers FAQ content, so this tool is unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool can return all FAQs or filter by a search term, implying when to use it (when FAQ content is needed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tool names suggest this is the only FAQ-related tool, providing clear context.

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