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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive outbound action. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the message is delivered by email, replies go to the supplied address, and turnaround is typically 24 hours — an expectation-setting detail not in any structured field. It does not mention that a sent email cannot be recalled or any rate limits, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient, with the request categories and response expectation packed in without filler. 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 15-parameter submission tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, the audience, and the response loop. It leaves conditional parameter grouping (which fields matter for 'speaking') entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage.

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 coverage is 100% and every one of the 15 parameters carries its own description, including the 'speaking:' prefixes that scope conditional fields. The description's only added meaning is restating the type categories and clarifying that the reply goes to the given address, which the schema already says. 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 request straight to Chris Pereira by email') and immediately enumerates the request categories accepted: media comment/interview, analyst briefing, speaking invitation. This is unambiguously distinct from the read-only siblings (get_profile, search_coverage, search_quotes).

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 enumerated request types ('media comment or interview, analyst briefing, or an invitation to speak (keynote, panel, podcast, show guest, training)') tell an agent when this tool applies. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives, though the siblings are obviously different in kind (lookups vs. outreach).

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