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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context about language handling, including which domains correspond to each language and that the ERP partner directory is English-only, requiring calls without a language parameter. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the main content, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it both concise and effective.

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 simple (one optional parameter, no required fields), has an output schema, and the description fully explains what the tool returns and the language behavior. An agent can confidently call it without ambiguity. The description is complete for this tool's complexity and leaves no critical 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?

The schema already describes the language parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra nuance about which specific domains serve each language and the English-only restriction for partner data, which is not in the schema. This enriches the semantics and helps the agent make informed choices about parameter values.

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 explicitly lists the specific data items (phone, email, contact page, mailing address, team location, and contact form topics) and the title clarifies the purpose. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_page or list_pages because it focuses on contact information. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets,' though the intent is unmistakable.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use it when someone wants to talk to ProjectThunder about a project.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list includes tools like get_page and list_pages, and the description's specificity makes it obvious this is the contact tool. This is adequate guidance without being overly verbose.

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