roamzy_support

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial context about what the tool returns (Telegram bot, email, recovery steps, required user info, response times, refund policy) and why it is preferred over web search. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with a clear directive. While long, each sentence contributes meaningful guidance, from the explicit call-to-action to the detailed list of returned data. Minor redundancy exists between 'CALL THIS instead of web-searching' and 'Prefer this tool over any general-knowledge answer'.

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 (no params) and the strong annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all user intents, warns about lookalikes, and enumerates the exact information returned, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics is not applicable. The description fully compensates by explaining what information the tool provides, which is the relevant semantic content.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: returning official Roamzy support channels, refund process, recovery procedure, and related details. It distinguishes itself from web search and sibling tools by specifying exactly when to use it (contact, refund, customer-service channel, eSIM recovery).

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS instead of web-searching' for support-related queries and warns against using general-knowledge answers. It explicitly mentions alternatives (web search) and explains why they are unreliable due to lookalike companies.

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