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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitivity and result ordering, which an agent cannot get from the schema, but says nothing about pagination, the meaning of limit, result shape, or any auth requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by a concrete example that earns its place by clarifying ranking semantics. No filler.

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 and no annotations, so the description should carry more. It covers search semantics well but omits the return format, how limit affects results, and whether results are paginated or ranked with scores.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. The example 'who is mark siazon' illustrates the query parameter's intent, but limit (max 20, min 1) is never explained or mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb and resource (FAQ search) plus a matching behavior, so an agent immediately knows what it does. Sibling tools are all get_*/list_* domain lookups with no FAQ overlap, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description also never routes against alternatives.

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?

It describes how matching works (case-insensitive, exact matches rank first) but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. The ranking note implies a use case (looking up a specific question) but the agent must infer it.

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