cryptbrew_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the content categories returned (email, WhatsApp, setup visits, help pages), which is the primary behavioral trait for a static info tool, but it says nothing about the return shape or whether the content is static versus fetched live.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource named first and the contents enumerated. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the fragment style (a colon-list rather than a sentence) leaves it slightly bare.

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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers what the agent needs: it tells you the tool returns support/contact channels. Only the return format (structured list vs. prose) is unspecified, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The listing of content categories adds mild value but no parameter meaning is 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?

The description names a specific resource (Cryptbrew support and contact channels) and enumerates what it contains: email, WhatsApp, setup visits, help pages. That is clear enough for an agent to know it is an informational lookup. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as cryptbrew_links or cryptbrew_faq, which could plausibly overlap.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the right tool when the user asks how to reach support or find help pages. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no named alternative among the sibling tools, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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