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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It conveys that the tool provides client statements about cooperation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, whether it returns a list or a single page, or any limitations.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core content front-loaded and the usage context second. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter content tool, the description is largely complete: it says what the content is and when it is useful. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether the result is a single reference or a collection of references, but this is low-stakes given the lack of parameters.

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 and the schema is fully self-explanatory with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is missing here.

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 clearly identifies the resource: client-written testimonials about collaboration with the office. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'projekty' or 'aktuality' by specifying client references. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'shows', so it is slightly below the strongest definitions.

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 states when to use the tool: when someone asks about experiences or reliability of the office. It gives clear usage context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, which would make it stronger.

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