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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that answers are 'short' and 'factual' and describes the filter matching behavior, which is useful context, but omits return shape, pagination, and how many FAQs exist.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. The long topic enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what's covered; could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should sketch the return format, but it only says 'short, factual answers'. For a 1-param read-only tool this is close to adequate, but the absence of return-shape language leaves a gap.

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 100% and the 'topic' param is already documented with examples in the schema. The description restates the filter behavior ('optional topic filter matches words in the question') but adds marginal value beyond the schema's own description.

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 resource (short factual FAQ answers) with scoped subject matter (selling gold, silver or jewellery in Ireland) and enumerates topics covered. Distinguishes it from how_to_sell and get_guides by scope, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Context is implied by the description ('answers to the questions people ask before selling'), which signals pre-sale informational use. But no explicit when-to-use vs get_guides/how_selling_works, and no exclusions or alternatives named.

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