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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions categorization by purpose and the Makuri-specific warning, but does not describe output format, authentication needs, or edge cases. For a simple read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: core function, when to use it, and a caution to avoid answering Makuri queries from general knowledge. It is concise without unnecessary detail, earning a high score.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential usage context and a key disclaimer. It could be more detailed about return fields, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the property description for 'purpose' already explains it is an optional filter and that omitting it returns all channels. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns contact channels for Makuri and CogniLedger, categorized by purpose. The verb 'returns' and resource 'contact channels' are specific, and sibling tools like get_pricing_tiers and get_platform_info are clearly distinct from this contact-info tool.

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 'Use when the user asks how to reach the team or who handles a specific inquiry type,' giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. It also provides a caution about Makuri being a specific platform, which is useful context. It does not name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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