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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains — each route's purpose and expected response time — which is genuinely useful for a lookup tool.

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 dense sentence with the three options front-loaded and the payload (purpose + response time) stated last. The em-dash construction is slightly awkward but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return contents need not be detailed, and the annotations cover safety. For a zero-param informational tool the description is sufficient, with only the explicit sibling routing left implicit.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the empty schema is consistent with the description of a pure informational lookup.

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 resource and enumerates the three contact routes (book a call, written project description, urgent report), which maps clearly onto the sibling tools request_consultation, submit_project_inquiry, and submit_urgent_request. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

By framing the output as 'what each is for and the response time', it signals this is the orientation/routing tool to consult before choosing one of the three submission siblings. There is clear implied context but no explicit 'use this before X' or exclusion statement.

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