Find answer sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable context beyond that: partial matches can answer by exclusion, and the tool explicitly reports no match. This helps the agent interpret results and decide how to respond, but it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, which are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action, followed by result details and behavioral guidance. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to interpret partial matches, and how to handle no-match cases. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and response handling.

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 100% and the single parameter 'question' is already well-described in the schema. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by linking it to the FAQ/policy search, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (FAQs + policies together), and describes what it returns (passages with ids, marked as answers/partial matches, plus scope rules). It effectively differentiates from siblings like search_faqs and search_policy by combining both corpora.

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?

It implies when to use the tool (for customer questions spanning both FAQs and policies) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It gives behavioral guidance for no-match scenarios, which helps with decision-making, but lacks explicit routing compared to other tools.

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