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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool exposes informational contact data, implying a safe read operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or describe any other behavioral characteristics.

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 description is a single, short phrase that says exactly what the tool provides. It contains no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, and the key information is immediately visible.

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 contact-info tool, the description is largely complete: it names the three key fields (phone, email, address). It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description adequate.

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 has zero parameters and the schema shows none, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters for the description to document.

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 identifies the resource: contact information for the real estate office, specifically phone, email, and address. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling content tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'stranka' or 'reference', nor does it mention any exclusions or context in which the tool should not be used.

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