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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context about the delivery mechanism (LicenseSaaS inbox plus email), but says nothing about required authentication (agent_key) or that a repeat call creates another inquiry.

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 tight sentences, no waste, with the action and its side effect front-loaded. Nothing 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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and 40% coverage, the description omits the auth model (agent_key vs legacy hostname/publish_key) and the semantics of the optional fields. An agent could call it but would be guessing on half the inputs.

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 only 40% across 10 parameters. The description adds no meaning for message, timeline, budget_range, company_name, contact_email, or inquiry_type, leaving several parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Send an inquiry to a listing's seller') and clarifies the account basis. It implicitly distinguishes itself from send_message and create_buyer_request by describing a seller-facing inquiry, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus send_message (existing conversation) or create_buyer_request (buyer-side demand). The only cue is the implied first-contact intent, which the agent must infer.

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