get_csirt_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds provenance (ENISA/FIRST) and the lookup nature, but does not describe edge-case behavior such as invalid country codes or empty results.

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 very compact, with no filler. The purpose, usage context, and parameter format are all conveyed in a few short sentences, and the parameter documentation is 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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, this is complete: it states what is returned, where the data comes from, when to use it, and how to format the country parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by specifying the ISO 3166-1 format and giving alpha-2 and alpha-3 examples ('FR'/'FRA'). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare 'string' schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get national CSIRT/CERT incident-response contacts for a country.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling tools about victims, groups, press, and filings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to find who to notify when triaging a confirmed incident.' It also provides source context (ENISA/FIRST) that helps an agent judge applicability, though it does not mention when not to use it.

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