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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered outside the description. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — the corpus is a bounded, published set of 142 entries across 17 categories — but says nothing about pagination or result ordering beyond what the schema supplies.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and packs corpus size, category coverage, and filtering capability without filler. It is dense but every clause carries identifying information.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and the corpus framing is enough to identify the tool. The remaining gap is routing: it omits any mention of fiveguys_faq_categories, leaving the origin of category ids underspecified for a 5-parameter tool.

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 100%, so lang, page, search, category and per_page are all documented in the schema itself; the baseline is 3. The description restates that category and free-text filtering exist but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 resource (Five Guys' customer FAQ corpus) and quantifies its scope (142 entries, 17 categories, example categories listed), which clearly separates it from menu/nutrition/location siblings. It stops short of naming the faq_categories sibling, so an agent must infer the relationship itself.

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 states the tool is 'filterable by category and free text', which implies how to query, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. In particular it never points to fiveguys_faq_categories, the sibling that most plausibly supplies the faq_category ids the category parameter depends on.

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