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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral boundary — that the server cannot send messages — which prevents an agent from promising an email action. It does not describe the return shape beyond the field list.

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, no filler, with the returned content front-loaded and the capability caveat second. Every sentence carries information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately enumerates the returned fields (email, address, form URL) so the agent knows what to expect. It could note the read-only informational nature more explicitly, but nothing critical for invoking it is missing.

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. This is the baseline-4 case for a parameterless tool.

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 exact resources returned (email, office address, brief-form URL), so an agent knows this is a static contact-details lookup rather than a messaging tool. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_company_profile or search_site.

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: call this when the user needs contact details. The sentence 'This server cannot send messages' functions as a partial when-not constraint, steering agents away from expecting any outbound messaging. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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