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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the contacting user writes the message themselves and the interface does not take personal data, which clarifies that this is not a message-submission tool. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 carry the full semantics: the first front-loads the purpose and deliverables, the second clarifies the interaction model. Every phrase contributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: the return content (email, form link, location, languages), the use of the subject-line keyword, and the non-collection of personal data.

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 schema description covers 100% of the params, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of a 'vorbereitete Betreffzeile' aligns with the schema's explanation of 'thema', but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines what the tool is for: providing the contact routes for a substantive inquiry — email with a prepared subject line, a link to the website's contact form, and location/language information. It is distinct from the sibling FAQ and search tools, though it is not framed as an explicit verb-plus-resource action.

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?

The phrase 'für eine fachliche Rückfrage' gives a clear context for when to use the tool: when someone wants to contact the organization with a domain-specific question. However, it does not mention sibling alternatives such as 'faq' or 'website_durchsuchen', nor does it say explicitly when not to use it.

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