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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it offers only that this is an orientation/documentation read. The zero-parameter, non-mutating nature is self-evident from the schema, but the description says nothing about response shape, size, or whether it is safe to repeat — a moderate gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 compact fragments, content first and the ordering imperative last, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, no-output-schema orientation tool, the description covers what it returns and its position in the call sequence, which is sufficient to invoke it. Only the absence of any note on the returned material's shape keeps it from being fully complete.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no argument semantics to document; the baseline for a zero-param tool applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call with no configuration needed.

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 specific content the tool returns — what Orca is, the target audience, and the public docs — which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_pricing, list_faqs, and list_services. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve', 'return'), so it reads as a content summary rather than an action, but the scope is 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?

'Call this first' is an explicit, actionable ordering instruction that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to the other site-info siblings. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to a specific alternative for follow-ups, so it is clear context rather than full routing logic.

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