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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral note that the tool transmits nothing — pre-empting the assumption that a 'contact' tool submits a message or form.

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 short clauses: the returned data is front-loaded, then the non-sending caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating the fields an agent will get back. It stops short of saying how they're returned (structure/format), but that is a minor gap for a trivial zero-param lookup.

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 schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4; the description correctly offers nothing misleading about inputs.

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?

Names the specific resource it returns (Fide-Soft contact details: email, phone, company address, deployment-form URL) and identifies the vendor/creator, which no sibling does. It's clearly distinguishable from cennik_integratora, porownaj_integratory or the search/fetch tools, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 it should call this when the user wants to reach the vendor. The line 'Narzędzie niczego nie wysyła' usefully rules out one misinterpretation, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to alternatives.

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