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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that the message lands as a single notice to hello@fordeal.ai with the sender as Reply-To, that no automatic e-mail is sent back, that a repeat on the same day returns the same id with duplicate: true (consistent with idempotentHint), and the 5-per-minute rate limit with no key required.

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-loaded with the purpose, then throttling and duplicate semantics, then alternatives — a logical order with no filler. It is dense to the point of being crammed into semicolon-chained clauses, which costs a little readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return shape (an id, or duplicate: true) plus delivery and rate-limit behavior, so nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call is missing.

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 every parameter including locale, ip_hash and the nickname honeypot is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the email/answer-path semantics and the message length bounds, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the structured fields — 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 concrete verb and resource ('The /kontakt form without the website') and immediately enumerates what it submits. It also names the sibling tools it is not (register_shop, send_cooperation_inquiry), so an agent can discriminate it without opening a 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?

Explicit routing conditions: a shop wanting comparison goes to register_shop; partners/media/creators may use send_cooperation_inquiry for a structured request; everything else falls here. The topic enum in the schema further partitions general/support/privacy, complementing rather than repeating the description.

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