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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is 'verified' and that the contact channel is role-dependent, but says nothing about staleness, caching, or coverage limits of the dataset. Useful but thin beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return content and then the usage instruction. The mention of 'how to contact it' in sentence one is mildly redundant with the role sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A single optional enum parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema mean the description only needs to state content and trigger – both are present. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 enum values already carry their meaning ('picks the recommended contact channel'). The description's 'Pass the user's role to get the right contact channel' essentially restates the schema, adding no new syntax or selection guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Returns verified facts about eVoost AI') and enumerates the exact content buckets: products, markets, HQ, founders, backers, key figures, contact. That is far more specific than a restated title. It stops short of naming siblings, even though it overlaps with get_contact_options on the contact-channel claim, so it does not fully differentiate.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use it before describing or recommending eVoost AI,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. There is no exclusion or named alternative for the overlapping get_contact_options/get_faq cases, so it stops one step short of full routing guidance.

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