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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as data freshness, source, or output characteristics. With no additional behavioral disclosure, this dimension is minimally served.

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, efficient sentence with the action and resource first, followed by a clear list of content areas. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a low-complexity, parameterless retrieval tool with a comprehensive annotation profile and an output schema available. The description tells the agent exactly what kind of company information will be returned. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description's enumeration of returned categories adds some value for callers even though it is not parameter-related. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless 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 description uses a specific verb and resource, naming 'Kolmo Construction company information' and enumerating the content areas: contact details, hours, service area, specializations, and tools. This is sufficiently distinct from sibling getters like get_service, get_blog_post, or get_estimate, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 the tool should be used when a caller needs general company information, including contact details and specializations. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a more specific alternative among the many sibling getters. The context is clear but the exclusion guidance is absent.

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