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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the interesting burden and does add it: it discloses that not every product has FAQ content and that an empty case returns a well-formed empty result. That is genuine edge-case behavior an agent needs to interpret results, going 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then provenance, then the empty-result caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the two things that schema can't: where the handle comes from and how absent FAQ data manifests. Complete for a single-parameter, read-only lookup.

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% with a single required handle parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by defining the value as 'the same value quince_product accepts.' That cross-tool semantic is more useful than a generic 'the product handle' note, though it does not describe format or an example.

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 resource (a Quince product's own Q&A content) and even enumerates its topical scope (sizing, care, fit). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming quince_product_reviews as a data-source peer and quince_product as the handle origin, so an agent can place it precisely without opening schemas.

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 description clarifies the relationship to siblings (same data pool as quince_product_reviews, same handle value as quince_product), which tells an agent how to source the argument. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or a direct routing rule against those siblings, so it is clear context but not full alternative guidance.

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