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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that channels vary by customer type (Kmong buyers use Kmong chat), but says nothing about the response shape or whether contact info is static.

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 parallel sentences (Korean/English) with the usage trigger front-loaded and the channel list immediately after. The bilingual duplication is justified by the tool's locale parameter; no wasted sentences.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what the agent will get back (the contact channels themselves) and the per-buyer-type caveat. Nothing critical is missing, though a hint about the return format would close the last gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (language) with 100% schema description coverage and a declared enum, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the language parameter, which is fine at baseline 3 given the schema coverage.

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 names the resource (contact channels for reaching a person at Doply) and enumerates the concrete channels: email, Kakao channel, and Kmong chat. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_faq or get_service_info, though the phrasing is a noun label rather than an explicit verb.

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?

"사람에게 직접 문의해야 할 때" / "How to reach a person" gives a clear trigger condition: use when the user needs human contact. It implies, but does not explicitly state, that self-service questions should go to search_faq instead, so the alternative routing is left to inference.

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