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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, covering the safety profile. The description adds only topical content, no behavioral context such as result structure, freshness, or size of the FAQ set.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a trivial read-only lookup. It is a fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of action, but nothing is 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, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, this is minimally sufficient: it tells the agent the content domain. It omits the one thing that would most help selection — routing guidance against search_site and the other get_* siblings.

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 optional 'fields' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including dot-notation examples. The description adds nothing about it, so the 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?

The description expands beyond the name/title by naming the FAQ's content scope (prices, files, materials, timing, delivery), which hints at what an agent will retrieve. But it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings like search_site or get_business_info, which could plausibly surface similar 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?

No statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent must infer on its own whether a pricing question belongs here or in get_quote_options or search_site.

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