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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked best-matching questions returned with full answers and that content is German, which is genuinely useful context; it says nothing about result limits or pagination.

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 compact sentences; scope and language come first, then the return shape. The parenthetical topic list is dense but earns its place by signaling coverage. Slight awkwardness around the '(German)' placement.

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 single-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, language, and return shape adequately. It falls short only on guidance for choosing between this tool and topic-specific siblings like get_care_and_safety and search_guides.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'query' including that it accepts German or English. The description adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 (keyword search) and resource (shop FAQ plus occasion-page FAQs) and enumerates covered topics. It distinguishes the general FAQ search from topic-specific siblings like get_care_and_safety and search_guides, though it doesn't explicitly route to them.

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?

Implied usage: an agent can infer this is for answering FAQ-style questions, and the topic list hints at coverage boundaries. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings (e.g., get_care_and_safety or search_guides) or when-not-to-use statement.

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