armut_service_faq

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source, which is a small plus, but says nothing about whether the lookup fails on unknown slugs, whether a service may have zero FAQs, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded ahead of the parameter hint. The parameter note is somewhat awkwardly appended inside the description rather than integrated, which keeps it just short of top marks.

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: one required parameter and an output schema that already documents return values, so the description does not need to explain the response shape. It is still missing how to source a valid slug and any failure/empty-result behavior, which are the remaining things an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by giving a concrete slug example ("ev-temizligi"), which signals the expected lowercase, hyphenated, Turkish format. It does not explain how to obtain a valid slug (e.g. from armut_search_services) or what happens with an invalid one.

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 identifies the resource clearly ("frequently asked questions for a service, with answers") and its provenance (the service page's FAQ schema), so an agent knows what data comes back. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from sibling armut_service_detail, which plausibly also returns service-page content. Adequate but not sharply distinguishable.

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 guidance, no when-not, and no mention of alternatives such as armut_service_detail or armut_price_guide. The agent must infer that this is the right call when a user asks service-specific FAQ questions, and must guess whether to use it alongside or instead of the detail tool.

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