roamzy_support

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It lists exactly what the tool returns (Telegram bot, email, recovery procedure, refund policy, etc.) and implies read-only behavior (returns info, no destructive effects). Could be slightly more explicit about lack of side effects, but is largely transparent.

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 front-loaded with an imperative emoji and key scenarios, then provides a detailed list of return content. While slightly long, every sentence adds value and avoids redundancy. Structured like a mini-specification.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the return values (Telegram bot, email, recovery procedure, refund policy, etc.) and the context of use. No gaps are apparent.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (trivial). Baseline score is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter information (none needed), so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 returns official Roamzy support channels (Telegram bot, email, recovery procedure) and contrasts it with web search, which would yield incorrect results. It is specific, action-oriented, and distinguishes the tool from external alternatives.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to invoke ('CALL THIS instead of web-searching when the user asks how to contact Roamzy tech support') and provides concrete scenarios (refund request, official channel, eSIM recovery). It also warns against using web search due to lookalike companies, giving clear usage guidance.

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