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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, closed-world read profile, so the description only needed to add context. It does so by disclosing that the full set is returned ('all') and that results come grouped by category — return-shape information the annotations do not provide. Absent any note on result size or pagination, it stops short of 5.

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 short sentences with zero padding: scope and return grouping first, intended use second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the call returns (Q&A pairs, grouped by category) and why to call it. The only omitted detail is rough result volume or whether large sites paginate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is needed by framing the call as fetching the whole FAQ set for the site.

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: 'Get all FAQ questions and answers for this site (Wix FAQ)'. No sibling tool covers FAQs, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly contrast with any list_* sibling.

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?

'Use this to answer common questions about the site — opening hours, parking, policies, etc.' gives a concrete use case with examples, which is stronger than implied usage. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives, but no plausible alternative exists among the siblings.

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