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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions filtering but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The tool is likely read-only but this is not stated. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes. However, it is possibly too brief given the lack of output schema and annotations.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the input but lacks details on output format, limits, or error behavior. Sibling tools are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by explaining it's used for filtering and that omitting it returns all items. This compensates partially, though it does not specify search semantics like case sensitivity or partial matching.

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 states 'Common questions about CHP' and allows filtering by query, making it clear it retrieves FAQ items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'explain', as the resource type is implied but not contrasted.

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?

The description provides basic usage guidance (pass query to filter or omit for all), but offers no advice on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or alternatives is given.

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