search_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the content (134 items, evidence-backed, each with root cause/example/data points), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or any limitations. This is adequate for a simple search tool but not rich.

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: the first states the primary action and content scope, the second gives usage guidance. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the content scope (134 items, evidence-backed) and expected item composition (root cause, example, data points). It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't explicitly describe the return format or edge-case behavior like empty results, but this is minor for a search tool.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('134 evidence-backed privacy questions and answers'). It also outlines the content structure (root cause, real-world example, supporting data points), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_research_papers and search_pain_points.

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 final sentence, 'Use for direct practitioner questions,' gives a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the explicit 'when/when-not/alternatives' level.

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