Get faq

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what FAQ content is returned, whether it is static or account-scoped, or whether it is paginated. With annotations carrying the burden, the description still contributes zero additional behavioral context.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it conveys almost no information. Adequate in form, deficient in substance.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for conveying what the agent will receive, and it does not. No output schema means the description should at least hint at the shape or scope of the returned FAQ data, which it entirely omits.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter semantics to explain, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 'Get frequently asked questions' essentially restates the tool name and title with no added specificity. It does not say whose FAQs, about what domain (account, billing, networking), or how it differs from other informational tools like get_system_status or get_networking_overview. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, no conditions, no alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent cannot infer from the description whether this is a support/help lookup or something domain-specific within this large networking/account API surface.

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