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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description usefully adds the corpus scope (which classes of documents live here) but says nothing about behavior on an unknown or unmatched topic, nor whether the answer is free text or a list of entries.

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 that front-loads identity (official knowledge base / FAQ of the shop) before the content list and the topic filter. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the enumeration of document classes runs slightly long.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what content lives here. Because there is no output schema, the description should have said what a response looks like (single answer vs multiple articles) and what happens when the topic is unknown, which it does not.

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 the schema already explains that topic is a key from the system-prompt topic list with examples ('szallitasi_ido', 'adatvedelem') or a free-form subject. The description only echoes that retrieval is topic-based, adding no format, casing, or fallback guidance beyond the schema; 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 concrete verb and resource: it retrieves ("kérhetők le") entries from the shop's official knowledge base / FAQ, enumerating the content classes (general policies, production rules, regulations, customer information) filtered by topic. This is clearly distinguishable from the narrow sibling getters (bank details, price, contact info), though it never says explicitly which sibling wins when topics overlap, e.g. shipping time vs get_shipping_info.

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 implied: consult this endpoint for general operational guidance, manufacturing rules and policies, selected by a topic key. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, which matters because get_shipping_info, get_shop_contact_info and get_bank_details plausibly overlap with FAQ topics like shipping or contact.

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