tool_get_emergency_contacts

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Curated snapshot' weakly hints at pre-baked/possibly stale static data, but it does not say whether all countries are covered, what happens when data is unavailable, or how current the snapshot is. For the only safety-of-life tool in the set, that is a real gap.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns. The arg block is slightly redundant with the name but adds the format and examples, so it 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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits coverage limits (which countries have data) and failure behavior on unknown codes — the two things most likely to affect correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the single parameter as an ISO 2-letter code with concrete examples ("TH", "JP", "FR"). It could still note case sensitivity or invalid-code behavior, but this is solid compensation.

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?

Names a specific resource (emergency numbers by category: police, ambulance, fire, tourist police) and the scoping key (country). It is clearly distinct from find_nearby_hospitals, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no routing to alternatives such as find_nearby_hospitals or check_travel_health. The agent must infer that this is a static emergency-numbers lookup.

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