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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds that 'The team replies by email' as a consequence. It also clarifies the prerequisite of work email and company. This provides useful context about the side effects and requirements, though it does not detail storage or retry behavior beyond the schema.

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 is a single, concise sentence that packs all essential information without redundancy. It flows well and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by stating the action, the recipient, the purpose, and the reply mechanism. It does not specify return values or error handling, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the action make this sufficient. The idempotency key behavior is already covered in the schema.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptive explanations for all parameters (e.g., email's 'traceable origin', idempotency_key's reuse behavior). The description adds a small clarification that email is a work email and company is required, which slightly enhances meaning beyond the schema. Overall, the parameter semantics are well-covered.

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: 'Sends a discovery-call request to the COTAL founders'. It specifies the resource (COTAL founders) and the purpose (for a company evaluating agent coordination). This distinguishes it from siblings like cotal_submit_feedback or cotal_join_waitlist.

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 mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires the user's work email and company.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using cotal_join_waitlist for a different type of interest or cotal_submit_feedback for feedback. The guidance is implicit but not fully explicit.

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