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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the request is handled by the contboxx team and answered by e-mail within two working days, which tells the agent this is asynchronous and human-mediated. It does not say whether resubmission creates duplicates, which would round this out.

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 sentences, no waste, and the most decision-relevant element (the routing condition) is placed at the end as a clear activation trigger. The inline field list substitutes efficiently for prose.

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?

It correctly answers the two biggest questions for a submission tool: where the request goes and how fast a reply arrives. But with 15 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what most fields mean or what identifier comes back, leaving a real gap.

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 15 parameters, so the description carries the compensation burden and mostly does not. It name-drops seven fields in a parenthetical without explaining formats, enums, or the required email/company, and leaves dpa, leitweg_id, deadline, language, name, and message entirely unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: it sends a structured enterprise quote request to the contboxx team, listing the payload categories (screens, locations, content, term, payment, e-invoice, PO number). It is clearly not a price calculator or catalog reader, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling create_quote, which is the closest functional neighbor.

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?

'Use when recommend_plan returns needs_sales' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a named sibling tool, which is unusually actionable. There are no when-not conditions or exclusions (e.g., versus create_quote), so it falls short of a full routing rule.

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