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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. It discloses that the tool takes no arguments, returns static text, and summarizes the actual content (retail vs. B2B wholesale, LINE contact, tier pricing, application required). This makes the behavior fully transparent for a simple static-info 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?

The description is dense but every part earns its place: purpose, key details, call triggers, argument behavior, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words on generic filler.

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 zero-argument tool returning static text, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to invoke it, what not to use it for, and which alternatives to choose. No output schema is needed because the description already tells the agent the response is static text with known content.

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, which sets a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly saying 'Takes no arguments,' matching the empty input schema. There is no additional parameter meaning to add because there are no parameters.

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 exactly what the tool does: returns the two ways to buy from GYOTAK with contact details. It is specific about both retail and B2B wholesale paths, which differentiates it from the listed siblings such as get_catalog, place_order, and ask_gyotak.

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 explicitly says when to call it: when the user asks how to buy, how to open a wholesale account, or how to reach GYOTAK. It also gives clear alternatives: use get_catalog for availability/prices and ask_gyotak for other questions, so an agent knows exactly when not to use this tool.

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