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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' phrasing aligns with this. It adds value by enumerating the exact data points returned (what the company does, founders, contacts, service areas, rating), which informs the expected output without contradicting the annotation.

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 a single well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists the key content areas. Every word contributes meaning without unnecessary detail.

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, read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its scope. It provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a factual overview of SynergyBoat, listing specific content areas (founders, contact channels, service areas, rating). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services and list_team, which focus on narrower categories.

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 description gives clear context that this tool is for a company-level overview, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous given the sibling tools.

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