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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), but the description adds meaningful behavior: the server never submits forms, books meetings or sends messages, and the agent must relay contact details to the user. This goes beyond the annotations by defining the interaction contract, though return format is not described.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool provides and followed by the key constraint. The clause about not submitting forms/bookings/sending messages is slightly redundant with readOnlyHint but is the most actionable part, so it earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the agent gets (contact channels and a booking option) and how to use it. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not state the exact shape of returned links or addresses.

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% and the single lang parameter already documents its enum values. The description's mention of Polish, English or German mirrors that enum, adding only human-readable framing rather than new semantics, so the standard baseline of 3 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?

The description names a specific resource (contact channels: e-mail, phone, contact form) and the outcome (how to reach JustAutomate or book a free consultation), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_page, search_site and get_workshop_offer. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear operational context — pass the link or address to the user and let them decide — and rules out the server acting on the user's behalf. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over get_page or search_site, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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