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 genuinely new behavior beyond annotations: that an empty query returns all questions, plus the topical scope of results. It omits result ordering/limits and return shape, keeping it below a 5.

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?

The bilingual pairing is justified for a ko/en/ja tool and the key constraint (empty query lists all) is front-loaded before the topic list. Slightly verbose due to duplicated topic enumeration across both languages, but no wasted sentences.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what is searched, the topics returned, and the empty-query behavior, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Missing only edge details like result count or ranking, which are minor here.

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 50% — language is documented in-schema but query is not. The description compensates by defining query's semantics (empty => list everything) and implying it is a free-text search term, which is exactly the missing half. It could add matching behavior (keyword vs fuzzy) for a 5.

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 ('search the Doply FAQ') and enumerates the covered topics (pricing, refunds, SDK requirements, production access), which tells an agent exactly what domain knowledge lives here. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_requirements or get_service_info, which is the only gap.

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?

Provides one concrete usage rule: leaving query empty returns the full question list. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling tools get_requirements or get_service_info, which plausibly overlap on SDK/requirement topics, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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