contact_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a static read-only reference lookup, whether results are cached or live, or what form the addresses/contacts come back in; it only implies content by naming categories.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource categories, with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the caller receives; it names the data categories but not the shape (per-campus grouping, fields per contact). For a trivial zero-parameter info tool this is close to adequate, but the return surface remains guesswork.

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 and the description adds no parameter claims, so there is nothing to misdescribe. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies; the only minor point is it doesn't say the call is unconditional and returns everything at once.

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?

Names a concrete resource set: three-campus addresses plus transport, and frequently used phone numbers / emails. The content is unmistakable, but there is no verb (lookup? list?) and no explicit statement of how this differs from nearby siblings such as campus_map or campus_services.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like campus_map, campus_services, campus_dining, and transit_next in the same namespace, an agent has no hint about which one answers a 'where is X / how do I get there / who do I call' question.

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