search_faqs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format might be, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core action. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameters or usage context.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how results are ranked/filtered. For a search tool in a FAQ system with alternatives, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal value. It mentions 'keywords or questions' which loosely relates to the 'query' parameter but doesn't explain syntax, format, or examples. The 'limit' parameter is not addressed at all. The description fails to provide meaningful semantics beyond what's inferred from parameter names.

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 'Search for FAQs based on keywords or questions' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (FAQs), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_all_faqs' or 'get_faqs_by_category'. It specifies the search mechanism (keywords/questions) but lacks precision about what constitutes an FAQ in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_faqs' or 'get_faqs_by_category'. The description implies usage for keyword-based searches but doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making help.

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