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

Annotations already state this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a human advisor receives the data and replies out-of-band by email or WhatsApp, which implies an asynchronous, human-in-the-loop response. It does not mention duplicate submissions on retry (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or where the personal data goes.

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 filler, with the core action front-loaded and the requirement/optionality facts folded into the second sentence. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With ten parameters, low schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it never explains the intent enum, the date range fields or the language field, nor what the caller should expect back after submitting. The out-of-band email/WhatsApp reply is the only return-path information provided.

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 20% and the description compensates for just three required fields (name, email, message) plus phone as optional. It leaves seven parameters unexplained, including ref, intent (buy/rent/stay), guests, check_in, check_out and language, so the agent gets no help on the fields that actually shape the request.

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 names a concrete action and target: it sends contact details plus a property message or general brief to a named advisor ('Domus Aedes advisor'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the read-only siblings (get_property, search_properties), but the submission nature of the tool 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?

The parenthetical '(or a general brief)' implicitly tells the agent the property reference is optional and that this tool is for contacting an advisor, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_property or search_properties first. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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