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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing the exact shape of the returned content (addresses with map links, people with role/email/phone/LinkedIn/photo, general sales contacts), which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or result size, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the resource and payload, then the usage trigger. The field enumeration is dense but each item is informative rather than filler; no wasted preamble.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the returned field inventory and the filtering options, and the schema covers lang editions. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and how.

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%, so the schema already documents lang, role, and office with examples. The description only restates the filtering concept ('Filter by role or office') without adding syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (contact info) and then enumerates the concrete payload: office addresses with map links, named people with role/email/phone/LinkedIn/photo, and general sales contacts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_company_info or list_open_positions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'when asked how to contact Codemate, who to speak to about something, or where its offices are,' and notes the role/office filtering affordance. It does not name a sibling as the alternative or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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