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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are active-only by default, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations and usefully flags that the listing is filtered. Pagination behavior and return shape are not described, but annotations carry the main burden.

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 and resource, then scope and default behavior. No wasted words, though the sentence fragments are terse rather than fully structural.

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?

A simple list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, so little is required. However, the description never says what a returned FAQ looks like or how the AI answers from it, and the active-only default is easy to miss. Adequate but with clear gaps for a revealing-the-result tool.

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%, so the schema documents all three parameters, including defaults and the maximum of 100. The description adds context tying the default active-only filter to the include_inactive flag, reinforcing the meaning of the most consequential parameter. Baseline would be 3, and this slight reinforcement earns a 4.

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 ("List FAQs") and clarifies the resource's meaning as question/answer pairs the AI answers from, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_documents or list_services. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_faq or the create/update/delete FAQ siblings, though the plural/list verb makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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?

"Active only by default" implies the include_inactive switch context, but the description never names when to use list_faqs versus get_faq, list_services, or list_knowledge_gaps. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated; no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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