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 nothing on top of that: no mention of result volume, ranking behavior, or what happens when the query is omitted despite the parameter being optional.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than economy, so it doesn't earn a high conciseness score.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional string, rich annotations, no output schema), so a short description is defensible. Still, the missing routing guidance against get_logging_requirements and the unanswered question of behavior with no query leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including examples "overtime rules", "safety incidents"), the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no guidance on query syntax, matching behavior, or what an empty query returns, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Search construction logging FAQ" gives a verb (Search) and a resource (construction logging FAQ), so the basic intent is legible. But it is nearly a verbatim restatement of the title "Search Construction FAQ" and offers no differentiation from siblings like get_logging_requirements, so an agent can't tell from the description alone which one answers a question.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_logging_requirements or create_daily_log_template, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the routing decision from tool names alone.

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