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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is an outbound action to a third-party team plus the consent prerequisite and an anti-testing guardrail. It stops short of saying what happens after submission — whether a confirmation is returned, whether the message is emailed immediately, or whether it can be undone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the constraints, and every clause adds a distinct rule (consent, required identity, no testing, no fabrication). Nothing is redundant.

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 four-parameter submit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and misuse guardrails adequately. The main residual gap is the post-call behavior, which the absence of an output schema leaves unexplained.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by stressing that name and email must be genuinely supplied by the person rather than invented. The `message` and `organisation` parameters get no added meaning in the description beyond the schema's one-line hint for `message`.

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 destination: "Send an enquiry to the Deep Thought Consultech team." That clearly separates it from the product-lookup siblings (get_product, search_dtc), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 positive condition ("only when the person has actually asked to be put in touch and has given you their name and email address") and explicit negative conditions ("Do not call it to test the connection, and do not invent contact details"). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered without inference.

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