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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false), it discloses that unpublished facts are omitted, that hours/routes reflect the site rather than a promise of availability, and — crucially — that no personal data is accepted and nothing is sent because the user completes the enquiry themselves. That is substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and then caveats. Slightly wordy in the final clause, where 'sends nothing' and 'the person completes any enquiry on the contact page themselves' partly overlap, 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and annotations already cover the safety profile. Combined with the no-argument note and the omissions/no-side-effects caveats, the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so baseline is 4; the schema is fully specified (additionalProperties false) and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly notes 'takes no arguments', reinforcing the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('how a person can contact this organisation') and enumerates the concrete outputs: contact page address, enquiry routes, email, telephone, office hours. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_contact_card or get_person_profile.

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?

'Use it when a person asks how to get in touch' gives a clear triggering context. It does not explicitly exclude near-neighbors (e.g. get_contact_card, get_team_directory) or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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