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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral clarification – 'Does not send anything' preempts the common misreading of 'contact' as a send-message action. It does not describe the return shape, but the key behavioral risk is covered.

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 compact sentences with the content list front-loaded and the disambiguating negation last. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('imprint' for Impressum) but nothing superfluous.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to say what information is returned – which it does by enumerating e-mail, corrections address, and imprint.

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 4 applies.

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?

Describes a specific resource set – contact e-mail, corrections address, and imprint – which is clearly distinct from siblings like suche, themen, and aktuelles. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never names a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for contact/imprint information. The negation 'Does not send anything' steers away from treating it as a messaging tool, but no explicit when-to-use conditions or named alternatives are given.

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