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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this transmits user contact data to an external party and requires explicit user consent, but says nothing about irreversibility, what the crew does with it, confirmation behavior, or error handling.

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 tightly written sentences, with the external send stated first and the consent precondition immediately after. No filler or 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 7-parameter lead-submission tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no field-level documentation, the description is too thin. It covers the consent rule well but leaves the agent guessing at what most parameters should contain and what happens after submission.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It references only phone and email (2 of 7) and omits the required name plus city, sqft, stone, and details entirely, leaving most fields undefined for the agent.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: sending a countertop quote request to the ATX Granite King crew. That is a specific, actionable purpose that separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_pricing or search_stones, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 an explicit gating condition: only call when the user explicitly asks to be contacted and has provided their own phone or email. That is a clear when-to-use rule, but it does not contrast this tool with estimate_job, which an agent might otherwise pick for a pricing interaction.

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