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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether the contact data is static, what channels (phone/email/address) are returned, or the response shape. The only behavioral signal is the implied content of a national phone number and local center lookup.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than well-structured: there is no leading verb or front-loaded statement of what the tool returns, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description should at least indicate the kind of contact data returned. It gestures at 'national phone' and 'local SPG center' finding, which is minimally adequate, but omits channel details and how to interpret results.

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, which per the rubric sets a baseline of 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify, so no additional value is possible or required here.

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 is a noun fragment, not a verb+resource statement, and largely restates the title 'Get contact info'. It adds the concrete content hints 'national phone' and 'local SPG center', so it is not purely tautological, but it never states its scope or how it differs from siblings like get_location or get_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent cannot tell from this text whether contact data should be fetched here or via get_location/get_practice.

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