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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it only builds a link and sends nothing, message text is included in the URL, and there are no separate name, email, or phone inputs. It also explains the human follow-up step of adding name and email before sending. This adds substantial context about side effects, privacy, and workflow.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only relevant behavioral details. Each sentence contributes useful information about what the tool does, what it does not do, and how the user completes the form. There is no unnecessary wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. For a link-building tool, the description covers the key behavioral context: no sending, URL-embedded message text, no separate contact fields, and the user's follow-up steps. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that topic is the reason, machine is the machine number, and language is English or Spanish, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. A 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?

The description clearly states that the tool builds a contact-form link with topic, machine number, and message prefilled in English or Spanish. It distinguishes the tool from a message-sending action by saying it only builds the link and sends nothing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as report_machine_issue, which keeps it from a 5.

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 implies usage by explaining that the person checks the form, adds their own name and email, and presses Send message. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of report_machine_issue or search_faq, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not comparative.

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