Faradars FAQ

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds a real behavioral detail: with `query` only matching questions are returned, i.e. the call is a filtered lookup rather than a full dump. It does not describe result shape or whether answers are truncated, but that gap is modest given the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the sibling exclusion. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant 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?

For a one-optional-param, read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, when-to-use, filtering behavior, and the nearest alternative. Only the character of the returned answers (e.g. verbatim FAQ entries vs summarized policy text) is left implicit.

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 `query` param already documents its purpose, an example value, and the omit-for-all default. The description's "With `query` only matching questions are returned" adds a small amount of filtering semantics but largely restates what the schema conveys. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get Faradars' general help answers") and enumerates the covered domains: buying/subscription, access validity, certificates, support, refunds. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fr_course ("Course facts live in fr_course"), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 gives concrete when-to-use context ("Use for policy questions (how long a purchase stays active, whether a certificate is issued, how to reach support)") and names one alternative, fr_course, for course facts. It doesn't address the other plausible neighbors such as fr_articles or fr_offers, which could plausibly overlap with policy/offer questions, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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