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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest value beyond them: the source site and the fact that content is Hebrew, plus that filtering is optional. No mention of result size, pagination, or freshness of the FAQ.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and its locale up front and the optional filter last; nothing wasted.

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 zero-required-param, read-only lookup with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is essentially sufficient — it states the return content (questions and answers) and the filter option. Only the exact shape of a returned entry is left unspecified, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single category parameter has an enum and its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that filtering by one category is optional, adding nothing about enum semantics or default behavior.

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?

Specific verb (Return) + resource (questions and answers from the checko.co.il FAQ) with a stated scope (Hebrew, optional category). It is clearly distinguishable from get_guide/list_guides by naming the FAQ resource, though it never explicitly contrasts 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?

'Optionally for one category' implies the filtering use case, and the read-only nature of the operation is evident from 'Return', but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus get_guide or list_guides.

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