Отримати питання FAQ — hotline.finance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'відображає інтерактивний список питань' (displays an interactive list of questions), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose error handling, whether it returns data to the agent or only displays to the user, or any side effects. The description adds some context but remains shallow.

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 description is concise, with three short sentences covering purpose, behavior, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded and each sentence provides distinct information. No waste, though the misleading example reduces overall quality slightly.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the interactive display behavior, but it is ambiguous whether the agent receives structured data or if the interaction is user-facing. It also lacks mention of what happens with an invalid category. For a tool of this complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description's examples are problematic: it suggests 'туризм' as a category, which is not in the enum (valid values are 'питання-туризм' or 'туристичне-страхування'). This could mislead the agent into selecting an invalid value. The description adds little beyond the schema and introduces a potential error.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving FAQ questions and answers from hotline.finance for a specified insurance category. The verb 'отримує' (gets) and resource 'питання та відповіді FAQ' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_faq_categories, get_glossary_item, find_faq, and faq_wizard by focusing on category-based retrieval of Q&A.

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 instructs to pass a category name and gives examples, implying usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention related tools like find_faq or faq_wizard. The context is clear but lacks comparisons to sibling tools.

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