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

Annotations already establish non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does so meaningfully: it warns about plan-cap consumption and discloses that embedding occurs immediately with a possible embedding_pending lag state, which is real behavioral information an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not describe what happens on cap exhaustion or how duplicates are handled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the cost warning, then the return-state note. No filler words; each sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

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 no output schema, the description does well to name the embedding_pending response field, which an agent would otherwise not anticipate. However, for a five-parameter creation tool at 20% schema coverage, leaving four parameters and all failure modes unexplained leaves the definition only partially complete.

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 only 20% — only the keywords parameter carries a description — so the description is expected to compensate. It does not: question, answer, active, and category_id receive no explanation of meaning, defaults, or constraints, and "The answer is embedded" is the only hint about answer semantics.

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?

"Create an FAQ" states a specific verb plus resource, which cleanly separates it from list_faqs, update_faq, get_faq and delete_faq in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus update_faq (for existing entries) or create_custom_field-style alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites. The only contextual signal is the plan-cap warning, which constrains use without guiding selection.

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