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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the tool only surfaces the form and the user completes it themselves, so the agent should not gather details first. That is real side-effect-relevant context. It stops short of stating whether the call is purely a read/render with no server mutation, or what is returned.

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 sentences, no filler. The what is front-loaded and the usage caveat follows immediately, with every clause earning its place.

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, no-output-schema display tool, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and the key caveat about not pre-collecting details. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify what the caller receives back (e.g., rendered form markup), but with no output schema that is a small omission.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters because there is nothing to parameterize, and it reinforces that no data is supplied by the caller.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Displays the WebWeaver Nexus contact form') and immediately scopes its purpose (booking the Discovery & Audit or a service enquiry). Combined with the note that the user fills it in themselves, an agent can distinguish it from submit_contact_form and get_contact_info without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call this when the user wants to make contact') plus a negative instruction ('do not collect their details in the conversation first'). It never names a sibling tool by name, so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out, but the when/when-not guidance is unusually clear.

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