Santurce Software

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, freshness of data, or what 'Contact intake configured' means operationally — it mostly restates response content rather than behavior.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise and is not front-loaded with an action verb.

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, no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a partial picture of returned data (company, services, intake configuration status). It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the exact response shape and when to call it.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-param tool.

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 fragment 'Company, services and whether Contact intake is configured' names the resource and enumerates the data returned, which goes beyond the bare tool name. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., 'Get'/'Retrieve') and is phrased as a noun list rather than a statement of what the tool does, so the purpose is inferable but not crisply stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit mention of the sibling submit_project_inquiry. The read-only nature implies a retrieval context, but nothing in the text helps an agent decide between this and other tools.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing no local files/queue/inbox/history, that success requires Contact acknowledgement, retry semantics ('retry later with the same details'), timeout uncertainty about the remote outcome, and a side effect on the contact's project fields without marketing subscription. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context and is consistent with openWorld=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the purpose before behavioral detail, and most sentences carry load. Some phrasing is telegraphic and dense ('No local files, queue, inbox or inquiry history'), which costs a little readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and openWorld/indeterminate remote behavior, the description covers persistence, acknowledgement, retry, and side effects well. The main gap is that several of the 9 input parameters remain unexplained.

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 coverage is only 33% across 9 parameters, and the description adds almost no per-parameter meaning; the meaning of timing, service, weekly_capacity, and company is left entirely to bare schema types. With coverage below 50%, the description should compensate for the gap but does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Send a project introduction directly to Contact.' It is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling get_company_profile, though 'Contact' is an ambiguous system entity and the description never explicitly contrasts the two tools.

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 prerequisite 'with explicit permission' and the const-required user_authorized flag imply when this tool is appropriate, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use contrast against get_company_profile or any named alternative, so guidance is only inferred.

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