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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral boundary — that the server cannot send messages or book appointments — which prevents an agent from misreading a contact-info response as an actionable contact channel. It stops short of noting whether the details are static or dated, which keeps it off a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The payload contents are front-loaded and the limitation follows, which is the right order for an agent scanning for whether to call it.

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 zero-parameter read with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is returned and the key operational limit. The only omission is any note on freshness or availability of the contact channels, which is minor given the output schema carries the field-level detail.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead describes the returned payload.

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 the resource precisely and enumerates the four contact channels returned (email, phone/WhatsApp, contact page, assessment page), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but 'contact route' is a distinct resource from get_company_profile, get_faq, or get_service, making confusion unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when a user asks how to reach the company. The second sentence provides a useful negative constraint (this server cannot send messages or book appointments), which heads off one class of misuse, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing and no mention of when contact info is not the right answer.

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