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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description must do the work, and it does: it discloses that this is a submission to a human advisor, that the advisor recontacts the buyer, and that no appointment is confirmed by this tool. It does not address duplicate handling, idempotency, or error behavior for an 11-parameter write.

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, no filler, with the action stated first and the consent precondition immediately after. Every clause carries an operational constraint.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, it covers purpose, precondition, data-source rule and downstream effect. It is close to complete; only duplicate/idempotency and what the tool returns on success are left unstated.

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 100% and each of the 11 parameters, including the three enums, is documented in the schema. The description only adds the lot-or-program framing and the sourcing rule for the contact fields, which the schema already conveys via required-if-absent wording, so the 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 specific verb and resource: transmits a contact request to a promoter's sales advisor regarding a lot or a program. This is unmistakably distinct from the read-only siblings (get_lot, search_lots, compare_lots), though the description never names or contrasts them 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?

Gives an explicit precondition (only after the buyer's explicit consent, with contact details the buyer supplied in the conversation) and an explicit prohibition (never invent the contact details). It also states what happens next, so an agent knows the call does not book anything.

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