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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real value beyond that: contact happens through a human specialist, at the customer's preferred time, and details are held privately for 90 days and never shown to dealers. It does not say what confirmation the caller receives or whether duplicate submissions create duplicate leads.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the usage condition, then the privacy note. The channel list partially repeats enum values already in the schema, but nothing is bloated.

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 nine-parameter submission tool this is close, but the schema requires only name and preferred while leaving phone and email optional — the description's "has given these details" hints at a requirement without resolving whether one contact method is mandatory. There is no output schema, and success behavior (confirmation, reference, next steps) is left implicit.

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 schema already documents all nine fields. The description adds only a little meaning, mainly that phone or email is the channel-dependent contact detail and that timing preference is honored, without clarifying whether at least one contact method is mandatory.

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+resource: passing the customer's name and contact details to Watches in Stock so a specialist follows up about a watch. It also names the channels and timing, which distinguishes it from link-only siblings like get_specialist_link, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use it when the customer asks to be contacted and has given these details for that purpose" gives a clear trigger plus a consent/prerequisite condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_specialist_link, get_sourcing_link) or stating when not to use it.

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