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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this action reaches a human, implying a real-world side effect and a non-automated follow-up. It does not cover response expectations or failure behavior, but the core human routing is transparent.

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 core action, followed by necessary consent conditions and the human-routing detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 contact submission tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the action, the consent prerequisite, and the human destination. A brief note on what happens after submission would make it fully complete.

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 fully documents name, email, phone, and message. The description adds the 'real phone or email' condition but does not go beyond the schema at the parameter level, matching the baseline.

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 clearly states a specific action: sending a message to IG Digital Lab on behalf of a person who wants to get in touch. It distinguishes itself from the sibling info and audit tools by making the contact-submission intent explicit.

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 description gives an explicit usage gate: only call when the person has explicitly asked to be contacted and provided a real name and a real phone or email. It does not name an alternative tool for audit requests, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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