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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the message reaches a human recipient, that it transmits on behalf of a third party, and that explicit consent plus a real name/message/contact channel are mandatory preconditions for calling. It does not describe delivery confirmation, failure behavior, or whether the request is rate-limited, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the sibling exclusion and the preconditions; nothing is filler. Mild redundancy between the first sentence's 'any other note' and the second sentence's 'anything that is not an order', but it reinforces routing rather than wasting space.

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 simple four-parameter mutation-side tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, routing, consent preconditions, and the human-recipient nature of the side effect — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is post-call expectations (confirmation or error handling), which is minor given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 all four fields and the email-or-phone alternative. The description restates the requirement at tool level ('a real name, a message and a real phone or email') and adds an authenticity qualifier, but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 and resource ('Send a general message to the IG Digital Lab team on behalf of a person') and enumerates the acceptable content types (project question, quote request, call request, any other note). It explicitly names the sibling it is not — the free-audit order path — so an agent can route between submit_contact_request and request_free_audit without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit positive rule ('anything that is not an order for the free audit'), an explicit named alternative ('for the audit use request_free_audit instead'), and hard preconditions: only call when the person has explicitly asked to be contacted and supplied real contact data. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and prerequisites are all present.

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