kovitel_get_emergency_contacts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content returned and the geographic scope (Vietnam), which usefully frames it as a static reference lookup, but it says nothing about data freshness, whether results are cached, or how the list is ordered/structured.

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; the resource list is dense but each item adds information about what is returned. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and where. Minor gaps (freshness, response shape) are low-risk for this kind of static reference tool.

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 and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a concrete resource set (emergency hotlines, tourist police, hospitals, Kovitel rescue contacts) scoped to Vietnam. Clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all device/plan/APN/benchmark utilities. It does not say what the returned records look like, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 implied by the content itself (emergency situations), but the description never states when to call this versus anything else, nor any prerequisites. With siblings being unrelated technical lookups, the lack of explicit alternatives is less costly, but guidance is still only implied.

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