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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful fact that authentication is required via a key or sign-in. It does not disclose response shape, latency, rate limits, or whether the answer comes from an external connector versus cached data, so it adds only modest context.

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 definition is short and front-loads the core request. The example earns its place by making the natural-language input clear. Minor jargon such as 'ce-net connector' could be clearer, but there is no significant waste.

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 two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and authentication prerequisite. It is missing useful context about what a successful response looks like, since no output schema exists, and it does not differentiate the tool from related contact and search tools. It is minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies that 'key' is an authentication credential and that 'text' is a natural-language request, supported by the example query. However, it does not explain the format of the key, whether sign-in can substitute entirely, or whether 'text' has structural constraints.

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 a specific action and resource: asking Kindly for a contact. The quoted example makes the intended use concrete. It does not distinguish this tool from lookalike siblings such as agents_find or directory_search, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only guidance is 'Needs key or sign-in,' which is an authentication prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. It gives no indication of when to prefer kindy_ask over directory_search, agents_find, or contact_request. The example implies a use case but does not provide explicit selection guidance.

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