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

The description discloses that this action writes into the same pipeline as the website form, records the inquiry, and sends confirmation and notification emails. It also notes that Thomas replies personally within two business days, setting response expectations. The anti-spam field behavior ('Leave blank') is described. These details go beyond the minimal readOnlyHint false annotation, which only indicates it is not read-only. No contradictions found.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter requirements plus guidance, and behavioral outcome. The core action is front-loaded. It avoids redundancy with the schema by not repeating every field description, instead providing high-level guidance. Efficient and well-organized.

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 form-submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: required fields, how to format the message, side effects, and expected response time. It does not specify what the function returns (e.g., success confirmation or ID), but given that it is a fire-and-record operation with email notifications, this omission is minor. The completeness is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value for the message parameter by enumerating precisely what should be folded into it (topic, location, format, audience size, role, budget) in natural language. It also clarifies that 'company' means organization and that phone should include country code if outside Norway, though some of this is in the schema. Overall, the description enhances comprehension beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a speaking inquiry to Thomas Anglero.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_* tools (all read-only) by describing a write operation that feeds into the website pipeline. The purpose is unambiguous and does not rely on inference.

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?

The description implicitly tells the agent this is the tool to initiate a speaking request, contrasting with the sibling tools that retrieve availability, booking info, profile, or topics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the behavioral details (requires six fields, folds all details into message) make the intended usage obvious. A slight boost is lost for not naming a specific alternative scenario, but the context is clear.

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