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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that sending is immediate via Resend when a recipient email exists, but the else-branch is left undefined (what happens if no recipient email is configured?) and it says nothing about irreversibility, consent handling, permissions, or rate limits for what is clearly a write/send operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and service, with zero filler. The only issue is that brevity here comes at the cost of coverage rather than being earned conciseness.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 15% schema coverage, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent lacks enough context on prerequisite consent, dry_run/preview behavior, the no-recipient fallback, and the undocumented request fields to invoke this 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 description coverage is only 15% (just dry_run and preview_only), leaving 11 parameters undocumented, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Ambiguous fields like slug, intent, urgency, budget, service_area, and the const-true consent flag get no clarification of expected format or allowed values.

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 states a specific verb (send) and resource (contact request) plus the destination service, which is more than a tautology. However, the tool name says 'prepare_contact_request' while the description describes an immediate send, and the description does nothing to separate this tool from siblings like call_company_function or request_listing. The name/description tension leaves the agent guessing whether this stages or transmits.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., consent must be collected first), and no mention of the preview/dry-run path as an alternative invocation mode. The only conditional mentioned is an internal branch, not a tool-selection rule.

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