get_faq

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: no error behavior for a missing id, no note on response contents. With the annotations carrying the burden, this is thin but not contradictory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence largely restates the first, so it is slightly redundant but far from verbose.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter getter with rich annotations and full schema coverage, so little is required. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about what an FAQ record contains or what a not-found response looks like, leaving a modest gap.

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% with a single documented integer id parameter, so the schema does the work. The phrase "by id" adds no format, range, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Get an FAQ" gives a specific verb and resource, and "One FAQ by id" clarifies the singular scope, implicitly distinguishing it from the sibling list_faqs. It stops short of naming the sibling or describing what an FAQ record contains, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list_faqs alternative, and no preconditions such as required permissions or behavior when the id does not exist. The usage is only implied by the word "Get."

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