Help: rules and FAQ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: without `query` you get every FAQ question with short answers or section titles with a preview, and with `query` you get matching FAQ items or page paragraphs. It does not mention truncation limits or result caps, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the parenthetical enumerations of covered content are informative rather than padding. The second paragraph carries the usage/behavioral load efficiently, though the topic list is somewhat duplicated between the body and the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. All parameters are documented, both optional, and the sibling routing is stated. The definition is complete enough to invoke correctly; only edge-case behavior (result limits, empty-query fallback on non-FAQ topics) is unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the query/no-query behavioral split and clarifying that `topic` selects the content set (FAQ vs. terms vs. host rules vs. quality policy). The per-parameter hints (Persian keywords, length limit) live in the schema rather than the description, so it does not fully supersede the schema.

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 Otaghak's help center') and enumerates exactly what lives inside: FAQ, guest terms with booking/cancellation/refund/wallet rules, host rules, and quality policy. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling ot_room by noting where a room-specific cancellation policy lives, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Provides an explicit when-not/alternative: 'A room's own cancellation policy is in ot_room.' Combined with the enumerated topic scopes, the agent knows what this tool covers and where the one obvious overlapping case goes instead.

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