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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context that results carry approval and publishing status and that the source of truth is GBPly, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or whether any FAQs can be omitted (e.g. unpublished ones).

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the returned status fields second; the parenthetical definition is worth its words. Slightly dense but 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, it covers scope and the shape of returned status data. The remaining gap is the required profile_id and whether all FAQs are returned (no pagination mention), which contrasts with sibling list_* tools that likely have similar semantics.

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 0% and the description never mentions profile_id, its format, or that it is required. The only hint is the possessive 'the profile's FAQs', which implicitly ties results to a profile but gives no guidance on sourcing or validity of the identifier.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List the profile's FAQs') and defines what an FAQ is here ('questions and answers kept in GBPly'), plus the extra fields returned. It is distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings (draft_faqs, request_publish_faq) through the plain 'list' verb, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this to inspect existing FAQs and their approval/publishing status, likely before drafting or publishing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as draft_faqs or request_publish_faq.

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