atcContactUri

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action as 'retrieves', correctly implying a read-only operation. However, it does not detail any side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations (e.g., whether the finding must exist, or if the URI format is standardized). This is acceptable for a simple retrieval but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the format or purpose of the contact URI, nor what the response contains. For a retrieval tool, understanding the return value (e.g., a URI string) would be beneficial. The sibling tools suggest a broader ATC context, but this description stays minimal.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (connection, findingUri) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 action (retrieves) and the resource (contact URI for an ATC finding). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like atcChangeContact (which modifies) and atcCentralResult (which likely returns a different type of result). However, it does not elaborate on what a contact URI represents, which would add clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other ATC tools.

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