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

Annotations already declare write/safe/idempotent/open-world traits, so the description earns credit for what it adds beyond them: the consent requirement, the demand for a real identity, and the one-business-day SLA. It still omits post-submission behavior (what the caller sees after sending, failure handling), which matters for an external submission tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consent constraint and SLA. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

The consent/SLA angle—the highest-risk aspect of an external write—is covered well, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But for an 11-parameter form with 45% coverage, the description gives no guidance on the optional fields or how partial data is handled, leaving the caller to guess.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 45% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate but does not. It only adds nuance to two fields ('real name and email'); phone, budget, company, country, service, website, timeline and on_behalf_of are undocumented in both the description and the 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?

States a specific verb (send), resource (project inquiry), and recipient (Corazor) in the first sentence, and the phrase 'on the user's behalf' clarifies the acting agent's role. This is instantly distinguishable from the read-only siblings (check_fit, get_case_studies, list_services) without opening any schema.

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?

'Only call with the user's explicit consent and their real name and email' is an explicit precondition and an implicit when-not rule (no consent → do not call). It does not, however, name any sibling as a prerequisite or alternative (e.g. recommending check_fit first), so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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