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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content (Q&A text plus HTML), but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or whether search and category can be combined.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core capability front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing guidance. Sentence order matches how an agent reads 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 4-parameter, fully optional, read-only search tool with an output schema and clear sibling differentiation, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. Return format is covered by the output schema.

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% and each parameter is documented in the schema, including the category format ('faq_category term ids, from any prior response's categories[].id'). The description only restates 'free text or category', adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('Chick-fil-A's customer FAQ corpus'), the filter modes (free text or category), and the return shape (question and answer text plus HTML). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling content, taxonomy, locations, and menu tools.

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 second sentence names three concrete alternatives and the domain each covers: content/content_taxonomy for site content, locations for restaurants, menu for food items. An agent can route between these tools without opening a schema.

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