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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the corpus language (German) and the result shape ('best matching questions with full answers'), though it says nothing about result count limits or what happens on zero matches.

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 sentences with no waste: the corpus and topic scope come first, the return value last. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, closed-world read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers corpus, topics, language and return shape adequately. The only gap is the absence of any note on result limits or empty-result behavior.

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 documents the single 'query' parameter, including German-or-English input. The description adds the useful nuance that the underlying FAQ content is German while queries may be either language, and clarifies matching is keyword-based rather than semantic, which affects how an agent should phrase the query.

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 and resource ('Keyword search over the shop FAQ and the occasion-page FAQs') and enumerates the covered topics (designer usage, image quality, payment, shipping, returns, care) plus the return shape. This clearly separates it from get_page_markdown or search_guides by naming the corpus, though it never explicitly contrasts with the similar-sounding search_guides sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the topic list suggests an agent should call it for questions about payment, shipping, returns, etc. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as get_care_and_safety, which overlaps with the 'care' topic.

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