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

Goes well past what annotations declare: the reply is moderated (content review gate), retries must reuse requestId (consistent with idempotentHint=true), and it requires a pre-provisioned 'submit:investor_inquiry' scope with custom auth, explicitly NOT OAuth. That auth detail is exactly the kind of pre-call prerequisite annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then retry rule, then scope limits, then auth. No filler and every sentence carries operational value.

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 mutating, moderated, auth-gated call the description covers purpose, prerequisites, idempotent retry behavior and content limits. It omits what happens on a moderation rejection and the shape of the success response (no output schema exists), which would be the last missing piece.

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 0%, so every parameter relies on this text. The description adds real meaning for requestId (retain it for retries) but leaves projectPublicId and message unexplained beyond their type/format constraints in the schema.

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 moderated informational reply on this agent's inquiry'), which clearly separates it from list_investor_messages, get_investor_inquiry and submit_investor_inquiry. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 agreement, acceptance or payment' gives a clear when-not boundary and 'Retain requestId for retries' gives a usage rule for repeated calls. It stops short of explicitly routing to alternatives such as submit_investor_inquiry, so it is strong but not complete.

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