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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. Beyond that, the description adds valuable operational context: the tool does not send messages, and the contact form can be opened prefilled with only topic and message via URL, leaving the person to add name and email and press Send.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary contact-information list, then follows with the no-message-sending caveat and the form-prefill instructions. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes relevant detail; slightly tighter phrasing could improve it, but there is little waste.

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 simple zero-parameter contact-info tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what information is returned, clarifies that no messages are sent, and provides practical instructions for the optional form prefill.

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 has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds useful semantics by explaining the optional URL prefill pattern, including the allowed unit values (8x20 or 12x30) and that only topic and message are filled, though these are not tool parameters.

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 clearly states that this tool returns contact information published on SJ Storage's contact page, listing phone, email, form, address with maps link, hours, and social pages. It is specific about the resource and contents, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_hours or get_location that also expose overlapping information.

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 description implies usage for retrieving contact details and explicitly notes that the tool does not send messages, which usefully rules out a mistaken expectation. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over get_hours, get_location, or get_features, nor does it name any alternative for obtaining hours or address separately.

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