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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context by listing sources and sections, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior when no section is provided. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no significant extra behavioral detail is added.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and then efficiently lists the relevant sources and sections. The section enumeration is somewhat long but directly useful for parameter selection, and no unnecessary filler is present.

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?

Given low complexity, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete for calling the tool correctly. It covers content type, language, sources, and sections. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but this is more a usage-guidance gap than a completeness gap for basic invocation.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents source and section. The description adds meaningful value by enumerating the exact section names per source, helping an agent construct valid section substring filters beyond the schema's generic 'Case-insensitive substring filter on section name'.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving FAQ content for Faktura VAT, specifically Polish question/answer pairs, and enumerates the available sources and sections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ksef_info or search_knowledge_base, which target different resources.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_knowledge_base or get_ksef_info. The source/section structure implies filtering use, but there is no stated selection criteria or exclusionary context.

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