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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: it explicitly states the tool does not send anything, resolving the main ambiguity for a tool named 'contact'. It also names the returned data (contact channel, service area), though it omits any error or fallback 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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose and return values front-loaded and no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing in 'Get how to reach...' but structurally efficient.

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-parameter, side-effect-free lookup with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it says what is returned and confirms no message is sent. A note on the format of the returned channel data would make it 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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately adds no parameter discussion, as there is nothing to disambiguate.

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 and resource: retrieves the contact channel and service area for McGill Technologies. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_services or get_engagement_model, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it needs contact info or a first step. The phrase 'Does not send anything' hints at a boundary (it is not an outreach tool) but no when-to-use condition or alternative is named.

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