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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the side effect ('sends a real enquiry'), the required user consent and data prerequisites, and the success return value. It could add failure behavior or irreversibility detail, but the most important behavioral trait is clearly disclosed.

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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the side-effect warning is placed before invocation advice, and the return value is stated at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation conditions, side effects, and success result. It does not describe failure modes or error handling, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters well. The description reinforces that name and email must be the user's own, but adds no additional meaning about the 'project' parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 action ('Submit a project quote request'), names the target ('BuiltToWinWeb'), and is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling tools such as get_contact, get_pricing, and search_site. This is the only tool in the list that performs a submission, so its role is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: call it only after the user has explicitly asked for a quote and supplied their own name and email. It also warns that this is a real enquiry, which tells the agent not to invoke it speculatively. No alternatives are named, but the condition is sufficient for correct selection.

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