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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait the schema cannot express: when query is omitted the answers are dropped from the response, so the output shape changes with the parameter.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource stated first and the parameter behavior second; nothing is padded. The phrase 'with his answers' is slightly opaque about whose answers these are, a small clarity cost in an otherwise efficient definition.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers both call modes and the shape of what comes back. Remaining gaps (relevance ranking of matches, whether answers are ever truncated) are minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema itself documents the query parameter with keyword examples. The description goes beyond it by explaining what happens when the parameter is present versus absent, which affects both filtering and return payload.

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 identifies the resource (FAQ questions with answers) and who they belong to, and the name plus content type is distinguishable from content siblings like get_insight and get_case_study. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

It states the two operating modes clearly: supply a query for relevant Q&As, omit it to list all questions without answers. That is concrete usage context, though it never routes the agent relative to alternatives such as search_insights or get_insight.

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