get_credit_card_hotlines

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get list' implies a safe read and the resource is a static directory, but the description says nothing about return shape, freshness, or whether results are region-restricted beyond Hong Kong. It does at least convey the data is a lookup, not an action.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause earns its place by naming the resource and its scope.

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 parameterless, read-only directory lookup with an output schema present, the description is essentially sufficient. The only minor gap is no hint at completeness of coverage (all banks? curated list?), which the output schema may address.

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. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (hotlines) with a clear scope constraint (credit card loss reporting, Hong Kong banks). It is readily distinguishable from the sibling stats/location tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any 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?

The description implies the domain of use (reporting card loss) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With twelve sibling tools an agent gets no routing help beyond the name and phrasing.

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