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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: query is case-insensitive and matched against both question and answer, limit caps results, and the return structure { total, count, items[] } with verbatim fields. The critical caveat about not generating answers when no match occurs is a valuable disclosure beyond any structured field.

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 description is longer than average but well-structured: purpose first, then use cases, then parameter semantics, then return format, then the no-answer caveat. Every sentence adds value, though it could be tightened without losing 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, full schema parameter coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers all remaining essentials: matching semantics, return structure, and the important limitation about not generating answers. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret results.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, but the description enriches them: it explains that 'query' is case-insensitive and searched against both question and answer, and that 'limit' caps results. These details are not present in the schema and directly affect how the agent constructs calls.

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 states a specific action ('Search the published VA Heroes PH FAQ entries') on a clear resource, and enumerates the exact question domains it covers (who can apply, required experience, skills, equipment, costs, etc.). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_program_information or get_hero_paths, which address different resources.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by listing the question categories it supports, and explicitly states when NOT to use it: 'It does NOT generate answers: when nothing matches, the list is empty — say so or use another tool rather than inventing an answer.' This gives the agent a clear decision boundary.

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