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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adequately states the operation, accepts text or topic, and includes pay-per-use cost info, but it omits details like expected Q&A count, output format, or handling of edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary action first, then the use case and input. The cost note is extra but relevant. There is a minor redundancy between 'text/topic' and 'input=text or topic'.

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 string parameter and no output schema, this description covers essential operational context: input type, intended domain, result type, and cost. It doesn't specify the number of Q&As or formatting, but that is not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The schema already describes the single input parameter as 'texto/tema', and the description mostly restates this as 'input=text or topic'. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little beyond redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Generate an FAQ'), the output form (questions + answers), and the source material ('text/topic'). It is distinct enough from summary or explanation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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 phrase 'For docs/support' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't name any alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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