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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it sends an email to a selected team and promises a reply within 24 hours. It does not cover authentication, confirmation behavior, or rate limits, but it adds meaningful detail beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the routing categories, then the response expectation. It contains no redundant or wasted sentences.

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 10-parameter, 4-required contact-routing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, routing options, and expected reply time. It does not explain what the call returns or any post-send confirmation behavior, but it is otherwise sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the 'line' routing categories, which are already fully documented in the schema, and adds no further semantics for the other parameters.

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 specific action ('Send the user's request') and destination ('right iMpact team by email'), and enumerates the routing categories. It is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings get_company and search_case_studies, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings.

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 team categories imply when to use each routing option, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_company or search_case_studies, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not fully specified.

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