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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: it sends nothing, it only draws the form, it hands submission responsibility to the person, and it reports a reference afterwards. It also imposes a prefill honesty constraint not captured anywhere else.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action, then the routing rule, then the no-send guarantee and duplicate-call warning. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still notes the form returns a reference. Safety is covered by annotations and the tool's side-effect-free nature is spelled out, leaving no material gap for an agent.

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 per-field formats and enums are already documented (baseline 3). The description adds real semantic guidance beyond the schema: prefill only what the person actually stated and never invent name, email, or budget 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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource: show an editable contact form, prefilled with known details. It is unmistakably distinct from submit_contact_form, which the description names directly.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule ('use this in place of submit_contact_form whenever you can show interactive content') and an explicit anti-pattern ('do not also call submit_contact_form for the same enquiry'), including the reason: the form sends itself and returns a reference.

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