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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and non-destructive; the description adds contextual behavior that no message or form submission occurs, which is meaningful because the tool name could suggest outreach. It does not introduce any contradiction or unneeded risk information.

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?

One sentence, immediately states when to use it, and contains no redundant clauses. Every word contributes.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and readOnly/destructive annotations, the description covers the key selection criteria and side-effect behavior. Nothing essential 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?

Input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds no param details because none are needed.

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 ('return') and resource ('public contact options'), and distinguishes the operation from sending messages or submitting forms. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that return capabilities, projects, products, or writing.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: use it when an agent needs to return public contact options. It implies the negative case—do not use for sending messages or form submission—but does not name an alternative tool by name.

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