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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned channels and explaining that role selection changes the recommended channel, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted wording: the return content is front-loaded, followed by the role-based recommendation behavior. The structure makes the core purpose and optional parameter effect immediately clear.

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 read-only lookup with a complete schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what is returned and how the optional role affects the result. It is nearly complete, with only minor ambiguity around whether omitting role returns all channels or no recommendation.

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 role enum is already documented as optional with its effect on the recommended channel. The description repeats the role behavior but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: returns official contact channels for eVoost AI, with a concrete list of channel types. It is clearly different from company overview, FAQ, offerings, or site search, though it does not explicitly name those 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 description implies when to use the tool by framing it around reaching eVoost AI and recommends passing a role for a tailored channel. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to siblings such as get_company_overview or get_faq.

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