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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about the return payload (email, form, who answers) but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or how the contact details are sourced.

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, front-loaded with what is returned before the when-to-use clause. Slight redundancy with the title ("Jensing") but nothing wasteful.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is adequate: it tells the agent both the trigger and roughly what the answer contains. Minor gap is that it never states localization behavior for the language parameter.

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 there is a single optional language parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no information about the language option (e.g. that the answer is localized), so baseline 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 uses a concrete verb plus enumerated resources ("Get the email address, the enquiry form and who answers"), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_company or search_knowledge, but the contact-channel framing is distinct enough in practice.

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?

"For when the user wants to talk to Jensing" gives a clear triggering condition for selection. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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