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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the response channel ('The team replies by email'), which matters because there is no output schema, and by flagging the two required identity fields. It omits the existence of a dry-run mode (sandbox) and of retry-safe behavior via idempotency_key, both of which shape how the agent should call it.

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 with the action front-loaded and the outcome second; nothing is padded. The final clause about required email and company is somewhat redundant with the schema's required array, costing a perfect score.

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 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens (a request is sent), who receives it, and how the sender hears back — the key information the schema cannot convey. The remaining gaps (sandbox dry-run semantics, idempotent retry behavior, rate limits) are documented in the parameter descriptions themselves.

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%, so all nine parameters (including sandbox, idempotency_key, agents enum) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that email and company are required, adding no syntax, format, or defaulting information 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 ('Sends a discovery-call request to the Cotal founders') plus the target audience, which separates it from contact-free siblings like cotal_join_waitlist or cotal_subscribe_newsletter. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, keeping it just below a 5.

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 phrase 'for a company evaluating agent coordination' implies the audience, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to sibling routes such as cotal_join_waitlist or cotal_submit_feedback for users who are not ready for a call.

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