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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it reiterates the no-side-effect nature ('without sending a message') and pre-enumerates what is returned, so the agent knows this is a static informational lookup. Return format specifics are left to the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the returned content, and the no-side-effect guarantee with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema and complete schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned, that the operation is side-effect free, and that it is informational. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter whose behavior (keyword focus, full summary always returned) is fully documented in the schema. The description says nothing about the query parameter, so it adds no value here — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and an explicit resource list (support email, contact page, support policy, inquiry categories), which is clearly distinct from the sibling documentation tools. It does not name the siblings to route between them, but the resource domain alone makes the distinction obvious.

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 clause 'without sending a message' implies this is the read-only lookup path as opposed to actually contacting support, which gives implied usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling tools or any preconditions.

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