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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: it explicitly says the tool does not send anything, and that passing 'consulta' returns a WhatsApp link with a prewritten message for the person to send themselves. It does not describe auth or rate limits, but for this read-only contact lookup the added context is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key conditional behavior. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundant restatement of annotations or schema.

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 one optional parameter, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what channels are returned and what extra value 'consulta' produces. It does not detail the return shape beyond listing channels, but that is a minor gap for a simple read-only contact tool.

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%, so the schema already defines the optional 'consulta' string with an example. The description adds conditional meaning: when 'consulta' is passed, the return includes a WhatsApp link with that message already written. That is useful semantic value beyond the schema's field description.

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 clearly states the tool returns contact and visit channels (WhatsApp, email, sales office, hours, map), which is a specific resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools like get_page or get_project_info, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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: use this when the user needs contact channels or wants to schedule a visit. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives among siblings, so it meets the minimum viable threshold but leaves selection guidance implicit.

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