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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningfully beyond that: this sends a real message to a real person, a reply comes back by email, no account is required, and human confirmation should precede the call. That consequence and consent framing is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then usage conditions and the refund pointer, with no wasted sentences. It runs slightly long across five clauses and the refund sentence is tangential to the call itself, but each sentence still 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return path ('gets a reply by email'). Together with the confirmation requirement and the refund alternative, an agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents email, subject, message, and name with constraints. The description only reinforces 'needs an email address to reply to'; it adds no format or syntactic detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Sends a message to CMeIn's support inbox') plus the outcome ('gets a reply by email'), which no sibling provides. An agent can distinguish this from cmein_info, request_credits_back, and the search tools immediately.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it (unanswered questions, order problems, anything needing a person), when not to (only when someone asked to be put in touch; show them the text first), and routes a specific alternative case ('for a refund of unspent credits, see cmein_info("refund")'). This is exactly the routing guidance the dimension asks for.

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