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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it explains that a query filters the FAQ and that omitting the query returns the entire FAQ. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences cover scope, examples, and behavior with no redundant content. The most important usage instruction is front-loaded after a clear topic summary.

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 single optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the FAQ contains and how query behavior works; a minor gap is not routing non-FAQ questions to the ask_manager alternative.

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 the query parameter with examples, and the description adds meaningful behavior: query enables search, absence returns the full FAQ. This clarifies optionality and effect beyond the schema's keyword description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: answering common questions about the factory and machines, with an explicit list of topics such as prices, warranty, delivery, and leasing. It is distinct from machine search or pricing tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 gives practical usage guidance: pass a query for search, and omit it to get the full FAQ. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like ask_manager or compare_machines, so alternative selection is only implied.

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