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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value the annotations do not: the shape of the payload ({summary, text}) in the absence of an output schema, plus a '[read]' marker reinforcing the access mode. It stops short of saying what an empty result or a bad/missing identifier looks like.

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 access mode, the returned fields, and both identifier options packed in without filler. The bracket/brace notation is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema this covers the essentials: what comes back and how to address the page. It leaves open the no-parameter case and whether the FAQ list is paginated or bounded, which matters given that neither parameter is required.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain that page_id or page_uuid each identify the page. However both are nullable and non-required in the schema, and the description never says whether one takes precedence, whether you may pass both, or what happens if you pass neither.

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+resource: an FAQ list for a page, keyed by page_id or page_uuid. That distinguishes it from get_page, get_page_language, and from the sibling *_faqs tools (get_article_faqs, get_website_faqs, get_collection_faqs) which target other resources. The odd token 'seliee_page' rather than 'page' is the only thing blurring it.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from get_page or the other *_faqs siblings. The only actionable cue is the implicit 'use either the id or the uuid', which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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