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

The description explicitly discloses the read-only, non-sending behavior ('it reports the routes, it does not send anything'), which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. This reassures the agent that using the tool has no side effects, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 concise yet informative, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the read-only clarification. Every sentence earns its place—the first defines what it does, the second enumerates the enquiry types, and the third clarifies behavioral safety.

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 zero parameters, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the routing categories, and the non-sending behavior, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics since there are none; the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to compensate for.

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 clearly states the tool's function: getting in touch with Netbrain and identifying which contact route suits various enquiry types. It explicitly lists the categories of enquiries (partnerships, white-labelling, research collaboration, platform access), which distinguishes it from sibling tools about products and capabilities.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool—whenever an agent or user needs contact information or routing for specific enquiry types. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but given the sibling tools are product/capability-focused, the usage context is unambiguous.

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