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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral clarification, 'Does not send anything', which prevents an agent from mistaking kontakt for a contact-form submission action. It says nothing about output format or how the links are delivered, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the 'does not send anything' caveat is placed after the content list where it works as a qualifier. The terseness tips into under-specification (no verb), but nothing 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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description effectively serves as the return-value summary by enumerating the contact channels the agent will receive, which is adequate for this complexity. Only the ambiguity around the 'website check form' versus the website_pruefen sibling keeps it from being fully complete.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool, and no parameter confusion is possible 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 enumerates the resources returned (phone, WhatsApp, email, booking link, website check form) so the agent can infer this is a contact-details retrieval tool, but there is no verb and no explicit statement of what the tool does. It gestures at sibling territory by naming the 'free website check form' without clarifying whether it returns that form or points at website_pruefen.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. 'Does not send anything' implicitly rules out using this as a message-sending action, which is useful, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over fiperly_info or website_pruefen.

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