faq_retrieval_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only retrieval via 'retrieve' and mentions vector DB, but does not disclose limitations, error behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate 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?

The description is compact, with a one-sentence purpose, a usage directive, and clearly labeled input/output sections. No redundant information, and the structure enhances readability.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, input, and output. It lacks details on edge cases like empty results, but overall it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 schema only defines 'query' as a string, but the description explains it as 'The user query to retrieve the most relevant documents,' adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. While no format or constraints are given, it clarifies the parameter's role.

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 the tool retrieves relevant documents from an FAQ collection, with a specific resource and action. It also emphasizes the F1 Racing domain, distinguishing it from the sibling web search tool.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this tool when the user asks about F1 Racing,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it lacks full exclusions.

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