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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description reveals that the tool returns static JSON compiled into the Worker, changes nothing, and updates only on deploy. This gives the agent a deeper understanding of the data's nature and freshness.

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 well-organized: it first states the output contents, then gives usage guidance, then differentiates from a sibling, and finally notes the static nature. Each sentence adds unique value with no redundancy or 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the exact fields returned (email, Signal, LinkedIn, business ID, location, languages, reply time, access needs). This gives the agent a complete picture of what to expect from the tool.

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 there is nothing ambiguous to explain. The description correctly implies that no input is required, and the schema confirms an empty properties object, making parameter semantics entirely clear.

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 states the tool's purpose: returning official contact and engagement-starting details for turva.dev, including a specific list of items. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_services, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicit instructions are given for when to use this tool: when a user asks about contacting turva.dev, starting an audit, or required access. It also specifies the alternative (get_services) for pricing inquiries, providing clear routing guidance.

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