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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the non-obvious workflow insight that nothing is transmitted and the agent must pass the route onward itself, which goes beyond the safety hints rather than merely restating them.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed immediately by the behavioral caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or title.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it only gestures at it ("ways to reach Jason, by purpose") without saying what a route comprises. Given the tool's simplicity, everything else an agent needs is present.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 the resource and its organizing principle plainly: contact routes for reaching Jason, grouped by purpose. That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools (get_build, list_studies, search_site, etc.), though it never uses an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', leaving the action implicit.

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 sends nothing: pass the route to the person you act for" is genuine usage guidance — it tells the agent this tool is a lookup step whose output must be relayed, not a communication action. It doesn't compare against any alternative, but no sibling offers contact data, so the gap is minor.

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