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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only content scope and says nothing about pagination behavior despite the max_items cap, so it meets but does not exceed the lower bar set by 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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the content enumeration second. No wasted wording, though it is fairly terse given the tool's ecosystem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is unnecessary, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is routing context against sibling FAQ/spec/product tools, which keeps it just short of full completeness.

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%, so both parameters (product id and max_items with default 20/max 50) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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 ('Dohvati pitanja i odgovore za proizvod') and clarifies the content type as FAQ with expert answers on age, safety, compatibility and setup. An agent can distinguish it from get_specs or get_product_details by content scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 content categories (age, safety, compatibility, setup) suggest when this FAQ retrieval is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_specs or get_product_details.

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