get_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (sayToUserRu, side, contact), instructs the agent not to invent reasons, and warns against hiding which side is involved. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'Look up' and 'returns' strongly imply it.

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 efficient and front-loaded: purpose first, then trigger scenarios, then output and guardrails. The example list is long but earns its place by making routing obvious. No redundant or filler content.

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 description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it, and the schema covers the parameters. It does not explicitly address edge cases like 'no FAQ found' or explain the optional storeId in the description, but the overall guidance is sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds useful examples of what can go into q and clarifies the output, but it does not add significant extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 clear verb and resource ('Look up AgentPay operational FAQ') and differentiates itself from sibling tools by spelling out concrete trigger scenarios (SKU, photo, search, coins, returns, delivery, MCP connect). The trigger examples make it unmistakable when this tool applies.

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 explicit call conditions: 'Call when the owner asks why...' and lists multiple concrete examples plus Russian phrases. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the situational guidance is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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