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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so '[read]' adds nothing new. The one genuinely additive piece is the '(summary, text)' payload hint, valuable because there is no output schema, but pagination, ordering, and empty-result behavior are unstated.

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 compact sentence with the resource and the identifying keys front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a tool with zero schema documentation, but the structure itself is sound.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers the resource, the identifier options, and the returned fields. It leaves open the important case of both identifiers being null (return all websites?) and the identifier precedence, which an agent could get wrong.

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 0% and both parameters are optional, so the description's note that the lookup is 'given by `website_id` or `website_uuid`' is the only signal that these are alternative identifiers. It does not say whether one is required, which wins if both are supplied, or what happens if neither is.

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 names a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (FAQ list of a website) and even hints at the returned shape ({summary, text}), which separates it from the many sibling *_faqs tools scoped to pages, articles, collections, ads, or leads. The odd token 'seliee_website' is opaque but the scope is still 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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over get_page_faqs, get_article_faqs, get_collection_faqs, or get_website (no FAQ variant), nor any prerequisite for obtaining a website id/uuid. Usage is only implied by the name.

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