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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses idempotency behavior: reuse the same idempotency_key AND details to check an uncertain submission, and never automatically start a new request. It also warns to exclude sensitive medical, payment-card, and authentication information, and clarifies that this action does not create a booking, payment, or price commitment.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the consent condition and core action, then adds exclusions, idempotency guidance, and sensitive-data warnings. Every sentence contributes meaningful behavioral or usage information with no redundancy.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and many siblings, the description covers the essential context: when consent is required, where the context token comes from, how to handle idempotent retries, what the tool does not do, and what content must be excluded. Return values need not be described because an output schema exists.

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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful operational semantics: context_token should come from request_service, idempotency_key must be reused with the same details when checking an uncertain submission, and details must exclude sensitive information. It treats contact_name, contact_email, and contact_phone collectively as 'contact details' but does not individually explain each, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the operation: save the customer's service requirements and contact details, then send a notification to the business. It explicitly scopes the action as requesting a business response rather than a price commitment, booking, or payment, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote and confirm_booking.

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 a clear precondition ('After the customer explicitly agrees'), a prerequisite source ('Use context from request_service'), and explicit exclusions ('not a price commitment, booking or payment'). It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but the when-not conditions are specific enough to guide selection.

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