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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description clearly discloses an important behavioral boundary: the server does not send messages or collect personal data, and contact happens through the returned links. It also explains the conditional behavior when a listing reference is provided.

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 compact and front-loaded: contact channels first, then conditional listing behavior, then the no-message/no-data-collection boundary. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 output schema and annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what contact information is returned, how the optional reference changes results, and the important limitation that no messages are sent or personal data collected.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: language controls the contact page language, and reference unlocks listing-specific agent and enquiry-form details. It does not add format details beyond what the schema already provides, but the added semantic effect is valuable.

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 specific resource unambiguously: how to contact EVS Property Group, including office, hours, phone, WhatsApp, email, languages, and contact page. It also clarifies the conditional listing-specific output (agent and enquiry form), making it clearly distinct from the property-search siblings.

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 context is clear: use this for contact details, and supply a listing reference when the agent in charge or enquiry form for a listing is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but there is little ambiguity against the sibling tools.

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