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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the 'published public' visibility constraint; it says nothing about not-found behavior or whether drafts/private records are filtered out silently.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate for a trivial lookup, though it undersells the tool rather than over-explaining it.

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 two-parameter read with full annotations and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is covered by structured fields. The unaddressed language parameter and the lack of any return/error semantics leave a meaningful gap given 0% schema description coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains the id format (pattern ^[a-z0-9-]{1,80}$) and completely omits the second parameter, language, whose enum and zh-CN default are non-obvious and materially change the result.

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 (get) and resource (FAQ) with a scope qualifier ('one published public'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling list_faq. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the singular/plural split is inferable.

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?

'Get one ... by id' implies the retrieval-by-identifier use case and 'published public' hints that unpublished/private FAQs are out of scope. However, no alternative is named and no guidance is given on what to do when the id is unknown (fall back to list_faq or search?).

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