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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool only returns contact channels/next steps and does not send messages or forms, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not mention permissions, response behavior, or operational constraints beyond that.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the behavioral reassurance is compactly stated in the second sentence.

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?

The tool is simple and parameter-light, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about what the agent should send in 'intent' and what the 'siguiente paso' looks like in the response. These gaps are material to correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter ('intent' or 'language'). Although both parameters are optional and 'language' is fixed to es-ES, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap by saying what 'intent' means or how it affects the result.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a clear resource: public contact channels and the next step to contact. The explicit negation 'No envía mensajes ni formularios' distinguishes it from sending actions, but it does not directly reference sibling tools such as get_service or search, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 explicit guidance for when to use this tool versus its siblings. 'Para contactar' implies the use case, and the negation explains what the tool will not do, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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