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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one genuine addition is "public", signalling no authorization is required, but it says nothing about caching/staleness or whether the card can change over time.

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?

A single sentence with the resource stated first and the returned fields enumerated after. There is no filler, hedging, or repeated information.

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?

The tool is trivially simple: no parameters, a published output schema, and complete annotations, so the description only needed to name the resource and its fields, which it does. Only the absence of any tie-breaker against whoami keeps it short of full marks.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric; the schema has nothing to misunderstand. Nothing in the description suggests optional selectors or filtering that would mislead an agent.

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?

"Returns the public EAC Partners business card" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the field list (name, emails, phone, address, time zone, website) makes the payload unambiguous. It does not differentiate from near-siblings such as whoami, which an agent may reasonably confuse with contact-card retrieval.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content: an agent infers this is the tool for contact/support details. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing it over whoami, which is the one sibling with plausible overlap.

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