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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive action. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the inquiry lands in a CRM and reaches the sales team, the sender receives a confirmation e-mail, a human replies within one business day, consent under a linked privacy policy is required, and there is a hard rate limit of 2 inquiries per e-mail per day.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers in side effects, consent gating, budget interpretation, rate limits, and an escalation path. Despite its length, every clause carries operational weight for a compliance-sensitive mutation tool; there is 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 compensates by describing what happens on success (CRM routing, confirmation e-mail, one-business-day human reply). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: budgets are PLN net with 'tys. zł' defined as thousand PLN, and zgoda is semantically a consent gate that may only be set true after the user agrees. These clarify interpretation beyond the schema text.

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 ('Send a sales inquiry to JustIdea Agency') plus the destination ('agency CRM and the sales team'), which immediately distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_page, list_services, and search_site. An agent can tell this is the action/write tool 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 explicit when-to and when-not-to rules: it must only use details the user supplied, must never invent a name/e-mail/phone, must show the message and obtain consent before sending, and sets zgoda=true only after agreement. It also routes urgent cases to a phone number, covering the off-tool alternative.

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