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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a simple query operation returning data, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 a single, clear sentence in Japanese that front-loads the key information (contact info and connection methods). Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the high-level purpose and what is returned. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use it, though the exact format of the return value is not specified.

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 has no parameters, making schema coverage 100% by default. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns (contact info and target audience), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns contact information and connection methods (Discord/GitHub/SNS) as well as the type of people Ogino wants to reach. It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_post or list_posts.

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 implies that this tool should be used when seeking contact information or connection methods. Given that sibling tools are about posts, profiles, works, and search, the usage context is clear, though no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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