Shop policies and FAQ

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: how the content is rendered (Q/A pairs for FAQ versus free text) and a dated, scope-qualified content summary. It does not discuss pagination or page size, but for a small read-only page fetch that is minor.

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 core purpose and trigger examples are front-loaded and zero-waste. The trailing 'Summary (2026-10)' block is longer than necessary and hard-codes shop policy facts into the tool definition, which risks staleness, though it is clearly scoped and dated rather than vague 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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need not restate return values or permissions. It covers purpose, routing examples and output shape adequately; the only real gap is that it never states whether all four topics are always available or how missing content is surfaced.

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 enum parameter already documents each of faq/terms/about/contact in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the faq-specific return format (question/answer pairs), which is a marginal increment over the enum description rather than new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one of the shop's policy pages as plain text') and clarifies the output shape (FAQ as question/answer pairs, other pages as text). This clearly distinguishes it from the retrieval siblings like ab_search, ab_product and ab_reviews, which return products or reviews rather than policy content.

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?

Provides concrete trigger queries ('how long does delivery take', 'do you ship with Tipax', 'can I return it', 'where is the shop'), which tells the agent exactly what class of question routes here. It does not, however, name any sibling as an alternative or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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