answer_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the match result handling, the medical question redirect, and the caution about never supplementing clinical information. It even explains the reasoning ('a confident wrong answer about money is worse than a short delay'). This is deeply transparent.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a usage directive, bullet-point instructions for match handling, a special case for medical questions, and an example. Every sentence adds value; the bullet format improves scanability without unnecessary padding.

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 parameter) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return types. It covers the essential runtime behaviors (match handling, medical redirect, no improvisation), includes an example, and provides sufficient detail for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool 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?

The input schema has only a 'question' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by using the parameter in the example (answer_faq(question="...")) and by framing the entire tool as 'Answer a question about the clinic.' However, it doesn't explicitly define the parameter's constraints or format beyond the example, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 answers questions about the clinic (timings, fees, location, payment, insurance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting informational vs. transactional uses, making it easy for an agent to select it.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for anything informational rather than transactional.' It also details how to handle different match levels (high, medium, none) and instructs against improvising answers for fees/insurance/policy. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, including the alternative of checking with the front desk.

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