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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait - that this is a read/explain tool with no submission capability - but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the response actually contains.

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?

Only two sentences, so it is short, but the first is phrased as an imperative to the agent ('Explain how...') rather than as a description of what the tool returns, which is awkward framing for a tool definition and pushes the actual return semantics into the background.

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 tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know what comes back (contact form URL, email, phone number). The description gestures at that but never states it, so the definition is only marginally sufficient.

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 according to the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify and the description correctly implies a parameterless call.

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 name 'get_contact_details' and the description both point at the contact/get-in-touch area, and the second sentence usefully clarifies the tool's scope boundary (it is not a submission surface). However, the description never states what the tool actually returns - contact details, a form, an email address - leaving the concrete resource underspecified relative to its 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?

The line 'There is no endpoint an agent can submit to' is a genuine when-not signal that prevents an agent from misusing this as a write/submission path. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over list_team or read_page for contact-related information, so the routing guidance is only half-present.

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