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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is sent by this tool' — a genuinely useful clarification, since a mention of a contact form could otherwise mislead an agent into thinking a submission occurs. It does not cover return format or freshness of the contact data, but the key behavioral risk is addressed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the payload ('links and details a person uses to contact Adbull'), with the non-obvious safety note tacked on last. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (contact form links for two topics, phone, email). Combined with the safe-read confirmation, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: no indication of whether phone/email are always present or depend on the chosen topic.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does echo both enum branches in natural language ('new website (free design sketch)' vs. 'SEO and ads (free review)'), which slightly aids mapping between user intent and topic value, but it adds no new constraint such as the default when topic is omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus the resource (contact links and details: contact form, phone, email) and even names the two contact-form variants. It is immediately clear what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the resource is distinct enough that no confusion with get_company_info or get_prices is likely.

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 can infer this is the tool for 'how do I reach Adbull' questions, and the topic split (free design sketch vs. free SEO/ads review) hints at when each path applies. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion against siblings such as get_services, which also describes Adbull's offerings.

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