search_faqsSearch Sunleaf FAQs to answer customer questions by retrieving matching Q&A entries with citation IDs.
Find the Sunleaf FAQ entries that best match a question. Returns each question and answer with its FAQ id for citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The customer's question or keywords | |
| max_results | No | How many FAQs to return, 1 to 5 (default 3) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds the return shape and the 'best match' ranking behavior, but does not disclose edge behavior such as empty results, ranking details, or what happens when no FAQ matches.
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 tight sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second states the return value and intended citation use. Every phrase earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage, the description provides enough operational context: scope, return content, and citation purpose. It lacks only minor guidance on no-result behavior and sibling-tool differentiation, which are not critical for this low-complexity 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds little beyond restating that the query is a question, and does not supplement schema with extra format or usage details.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Find'), names the resource ('Sunleaf FAQ entries'), and states the return payload (question, answer, FAQ id for citation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products or get_policy.
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 context ('best match a question') implies a FAQ lookup use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as answer_sources. Usage must be inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.