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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only, idempotent lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that it returns phone, e-mail, and open-now status for shop contacts, and that it routes certain topics to Lenius support. It does not clarify what Lenius support returns or how missing contacts are handled.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the purpose is stated first. Its parenthetical topic lists make it dense, but it remains appropriately sized for the amount of routing information conveyed.

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 no output schema and no required parameters, the description should clarify return values and optional-parameter behavior. It covers the main routing and contact fields but omits order_id semantics and what happens when shop or topic is absent.

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 67%, so the description must add meaning. It helpfully maps topic groups to shop versus Lenius support, but the order_id parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 communicates that the tool retrieves the right support contact, and it distinguishes between shop contacts and Lenius support based on topic. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling tools, so the purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is 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?

The description implies when to use the tool by listing question topics such as orders, delivery, refunds, and technical problems. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternative sibling tools for related information.

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