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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, open-world, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a human replies by e-mail within 48 business hours, and the agent must surface the 'relay_to_user' field from the result. That is real context beyond the annotations, though it omits rate limits or failure behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the response expectation and then the user-confirmation instruction. No filler.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent obligations: confirm with the user and relay the returned text. It omits error/failure handling and what happens if the enquiry cannot be delivered, a minor gap.

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 86% and every property is already documented in the schema, so the description need not restate parameters. It adds nothing about budget/timeline/language semantics, 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 (send) and resource (software project enquiry) plus the destination (Order Group) and on whose behalf it acts. This is unambiguous and trivially distinguishable from the only sibling, list_case_studies.

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 a clear pre-call prerequisite: confirm the e-mail address and message with the user before calling. It does not name alternatives or a when-not-to-use case, but the sibling set is unrelated so this is largely unnecessary.

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