help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states it returns FAQ and is free, but does not detail side effects, idempotency, or behavior with invalid topics. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 the tool's purpose, topics, and cost. No redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple FAQ tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it returns (FAQ on listed topics) and that it is free. Minor missing details like response format or error handling are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description lists the topic categories in text, adding value over the bare enum schema. However, it does not explicitly map enum values to their filtering behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns FAQ content on specific topics (authentication, billing, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling security/audit tools by its focus on documentation and help.

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 notes it is 'free to call' and has an optional topic filter, implying use for getting FAQ info. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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