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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the content covers FAQs, which is consistent but provides no additional behavioral insight (e.g., response format, pagination, or error behavior). It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence of 14 words, concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's content. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning it returns a list), but it avoids fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the output format (e.g., array of objects) or if any filtering is available. For a FAQ retriever, additional context about structure would improve usability.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to explain them. It adds context about the tool's content (quotes, pricing, etc.), which helps an agent understand what to expect. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves common questions and answers about specific topics (quotes, pricing, contracts, company workings), which is consistent with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like get_case_studies or get_client_reviews by content type, though the verb is implicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists content areas, lacking context about prerequisites, search limitations, or exclusions. An agent would not know when to prefer this over get_quote or get_service_areas.

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