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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context beyond annotations by specifying the source URL, a fixed count of 10 items, and the subject coverage, which helps set expectations about the corpus being finite and static.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently packs the URL, count, and topic scope into a dash-separated clause. Every word adds value and no unnecessary detail is present.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema available, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining selection-relevant context: the exact source URL, corpus size, and topic areas. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without further investigation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the input surface. The description reinforces that the tool takes no arguments and returns the entire corpus, which is the baseline expectation for a parameter-less tool.

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 ('List'), identifies the exact resource ('every question/answer pair from https://devplane.dev/faq'), and provides count and topic coverage. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_faq (single item) and list_comparisons/list_pages (different content).

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 phrasing 'List every question/answer pair' implies the tool is for retrieving the full FAQ corpus, so usage is inferable. However, it never explicitly mentions when to prefer get_faq for a single entry or compares against list_comparisons/list_pages, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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