get_contact_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but does not disclose what happens when 'department' is omitted, what the response format is, or whether any permissions are needed. This is a simple read operation, so the lack of detail is not severely misleading.

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 consists of a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, low-risk read operation), the description is nearly complete. It would benefit from explicitly stating the default behavior when no department is specified, but this is easily inferred from the tool's name and description.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single 'department' parameter. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter beyond confirming the context of Kalundborg Kommune, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Hent kontaktinformation') and the resource ('Kalundborg Kommune'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough that separation is not necessary.

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 that the tool is used to obtain contact information, but it does not explain when to use it versus alternatives like search_content or search_services. It also gives no guidance on how the optional 'department' parameter affects usage.

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