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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether this is a static/snapshot read, how content is versioned, or what form the answer takes. The only disclosure is content scope ('includes what the platform does not offer'), which is a minor positive.

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 short and there is no filler, but it is a fragmented noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of function. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than tight editing.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the minimum an agent needs is what content comes back, and the description does signal FAQ content including platform limitations. It stops short of describing structure or freshness, but the tool's low complexity limits the cost of that 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no semantic gaps are possible.

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 expands the tool name into a noun phrase — 'Frequently asked questions' — without a verb or resource framing. The added clause about covering what the platform does not offer gives a small scope hint, but an agent gets no clearer picture than it did from the name 'get_faq'.

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?

It provides no indication of when to call this rather than siblings such as get_brand_overview, get_live_index, or get_package. The FAQ content overlaps conceptually with a brand overview or package info, so routing guidance was particularly needed here and is absent.

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