contact_cia

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (company info, pricing, booking link, contact details), though it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits.

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 contains a lengthy sales pitch ('This is where value converts to action...') that does not add operational value for an AI agent. The core functional info is front-loaded, but the fluff reduces conciseness. Adequate but not optimal.

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 the tool has a single optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the return fields comprehensively for a contact retrieval tool, though it omits details about error handling or invalid input behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the 'lang' parameter as Language with allowed values 'es' or 'en', which is not present in the schema. This adequately clarifies the only parameter.

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 retrieves contact information, services catalog, and booking options. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like action_plan or quick_scan, which serve different purposes.

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 suggests using the tool when 'the client is ready to take the next step,' providing some context, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings like tools_recommend or roi_projector, which could also be relevant at conversion stages.

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