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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes by reinforcing the no-side-effect boundary and disclosing that the contacts are public sales contacts, which tells the agent the data source is static rather than a live CRM record. No auth, rate-limit or return-shape detail is added.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The retrieval purpose is front-loaded, with usage triggers and the negative constraint following in priority order.

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 one-optional-param read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (contacts plus quotation guidance) and what it will not do. It leaves the exact response shape and language-selection behavior implicit, which is a minor gap given the schema handles the parameter.

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 language enum is fully documented in the schema (tr/en/ru/ar with a default). The description says nothing about the language parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get public sales contacts') plus the secondary payload ('quotation preparation guidance'). It implicitly separates itself from the product-catalog siblings (get_product, list_products, find_material) by being about contacts and guidance, but never names a sibling or draws an explicit boundary.

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 concrete when-to-use triggers (prices, availability, delivery, unsupported products, missing information) and explicit when-not clauses ('Does not send messages, create leads or place orders'). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the request is actually a product lookup.

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