list_faqs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally, and the description adds nothing beyond them — no ordering, pagination, or indication of what an FAQ record contains (e.g., whether IDs surface for later update_faq/remove_faq calls). With no output schema, that return-shape ambiguity is left entirely unaddressed.

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 zero filler — the verb and resource come first and nothing is repeated from the title or schema. It is arguably too terse to carry the context a caller needs, but the sentence itself is efficiently structured.

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 parameterless read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It still omits what the listing returns and in what order, which matters because downstream FAQ edits likely depend on identifiers exposed by this call.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all FAQs") plus a scope qualifier ("on the wedding website"), so an agent immediately knows this is a read of FAQ entries rather than the sibling add_faq/update_faq/remove_faq mutations. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the other list_* siblings (list_pages, list_home_sections, list_inquiries), leaving resource disambiguation to the name alone.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as get_wedding_dashboard or the FAQ mutation tools. The zero-parameter shape makes the omission relatively low-risk, but the description itself contributes no routing information.

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