atcContactUri

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool retrieves the responsible party's contact URI, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose behavior on invalid input or what happens when no contact exists, which would be valuable given no 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?

The description is a single, focused phrase with no redundant words. It front-loads the key concept (contact URI) and adds the responsibility context. It's efficient and avoids repetition of the parameter details already present in the schema.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only accessor, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the conceptual meaning of the result and the parameter is fully documented. However, with no output schema, it would be helpful to at least imply the response format (e.g., a URI string) or note possible empty results, which 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for findingUri with a clear description ('The URI of the ATC finding'). The tool description does not add further semantics about the parameter—it only implies the relationship to the result. Since the schema already handles the parameter, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the resource (ATC finding) and the attribute being accessed (contact URI), plus the semantic meaning ('who is responsible for it'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like atcChangeContact which imply a mutation. The only minor weakness is that it's phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. While it's a simple accessor, the absence of any context about when to invoke it leaves the agent to infer from the name and purpose.

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