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

Annotations already declare read-only, closed-world behavior, so the description is free to focus on content specifics — that the corpus is Italian-only, that answers are truncated to ~600 characters, and that plurals/accents are handled. It does not mention empty-result behavior or ranking, but adds solid context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose first, result shape second, query-language guidance last. No redundancy with the schema, no filler.

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 output schema, the description steps in to describe every result field (type, title, answer, url, product_id) plus the truncation caveat, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps: no mention of what an empty result set looks like.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by telling the agent to phrase the query in Italian and noting that plurals and accents are normalized, which materially changes how the query parameter should be filled. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which documents it well.

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 ('Searches the website's FAQ and knowledge base articles') and enumerates the topic domain (materials, finishes, print files, shipping, payments...). This clearly separates it from catalog siblings like search_catalog and lookup_catalog, which handle products rather than help content.

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?

The enumerated topic list implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies (customer questions about materials, shipping, invoices, quotes, orders). However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states exclusions, e.g. 'use search_catalog for products, this for support questions'.

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