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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the output nature ('Returns structured facts, not marketing copy') and implies a read-only informational operation. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate transparency, though it does not mention data source or 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by usage conditions and output type. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, trigger conditions, and output nature. It could name sibling alternatives for even clearer routing, but it is largely complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter semantics, and no ambiguity exists.

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 (Infinivo positioning) and the exact content (what Infinivo is, who it serves, the problem it solves). It also distinguishes this tool from demo, pricing, and proof siblings by presenting it as the first call for general research on Infinivo.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a user asks about Infinivo or when researching AI phone answering, intake automation, or lead capture for specific law firm types. The phrase 'Call this first' gives a clear sequencing rule, though it does not name alternative tools for explicit exclusions.

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