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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing provenance ('from the contact page', 'as listed', 'the page's own opening lines') and that map links plus structured-data coordinates are included, which implies verbatim quoting rather than synthesis. It says nothing about caching, freshness, or behavior when a language variant lacks a field.

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 scope statement is front-loaded ('Where ... is and when it is open'), and the following list is information-dense rather than padded. It is a single run-on sentence with chained 'and' clauses, so structure could be improved, but no sentence is wasted.

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 tool with an output schema, the description needs only to say what content comes back and where it comes from, which it does exhaustively. The remaining gap is routing guidance against siblings that also return contact-adjacent data, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the /es/ path and the "en" default. The description does not mention the language parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (address, hours, phone, email, mailing address, languages, map/directions links, structured-data coordinates) rather than restating the title. An agent can tell this apart from get_contact_form_link and get_pricing by the enumerated contents. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from those siblings, hence a 4.

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 only implied: an agent infers 'call this when you need the location, hours, or contact details.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_contact_form_link for the web form or get_amenities for facilities.

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