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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the draft is stored anonymously, a 6-digit code is emailed, and the inquiry is not delivered to 4chems until verification succeeds. It omits whether repeated calls resend codes or how long the challenge_id stays valid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the required follow-up. No filler, and every sentence carries information the agent needs to complete the task.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the challenge_id handoff. However, for a nested-object mutation with 0% schema description coverage and an undocumented 'authorization' parameter, the description is not complete enough to tell an agent what to send.

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 0% and the input is a nested body object with six fields (name, email, topic, message, company, website) plus an opaque 'authorization' string. The description says nothing about any of these fields, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and leaves the required content of the payload undefined.

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 ('Store an anonymous inquiry draft and email a 6-digit verification code') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling verify_inquiry, which completes the flow. An agent can separate this tool from the other start_*/create_* onboarding siblings without opening a schema.

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 operational sequence: ask the user for the emailed code, then call verify_inquiry with the returned challenge_id and code. It does not state when not to use it or how it relates to siblings like create_access_request, but the context and next step are unambiguous.

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