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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data is in Polish and the internal structure of sources/sections, but does not state the return format, selection behavior, or whether it returns all matching entries. For a read-only tool, it lacks clarity on what the agent will actually receive.

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 a single long sentence, but it is densely informative: the source names and section lists are necessary for parameter selection. The structure uses clear parentheses and quotes, and there is no filler. It could be slightly more front-loaded with a verb, but it remains efficient.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input space thoroughly by providing allowed sections and sources. It does not describe the response format beyond 'question/answer pairs', which is minimal for an agent to know what to expect. Given the simplicity, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, giving a high baseline. The description adds significant value by enumerating the valid section names for each 'source' enum value, which is not present in the schema itself. This enriches the parameter meaning and helps the agent construct correct queries beyond the bare enum.

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 resource as the FAQ for Faktura VAT 2026, with Polish question/answer pairs. It lists specific sources and sections, which makes the scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product_info or get_ksef_info. However, it lacks an explicit action verb ('returns', 'retrieves'), relying on the tool name for the operation.

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 implies usage: it shows the topics covered, so an agent can infer when to call this tool for FAQ-related queries. It does not explicitly state alternatives, exclusions, or compare with search_knowledge_base or other siblings. The granular section list subtly guides selection between 'program' and 'ksef' but gives no direct 'use this when' advice.

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