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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, and the description adds behavior beyond them: the message lands in the same conversation the owner sees in NeoMind, so the effect is user-visible and persistent. It does not disclose latency, whether the call blocks for the reply, or what happens if the teammate cannot respond.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose plus return value first, then persistence location, then the optional-parameter rule. No repetition of schema content and nothing to cut.

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 three-parameter write call with no output schema, it covers what is sent, what comes back ('their reply'), and where the result persists. The remaining gap is interaction detail such as blocking behavior and error handling on an invalid teammate key, which an agent would need before relying on it in a loop.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the enum and the session_id semantics. The description only adds the pointer that teammate keys come from list_teammates, which is marginally useful but not compensating for any gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Send a message to one of your AI teammates ... and get their reply.' It also points at the sibling list_teammates as the source of valid keys and clarifies where the message lands. It stops short of distinguishing this from get_conversation, which reads the same conversations, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule: 'Pass session_id only to continue a specific earlier conversation,' which tells the agent when to omit the optional parameter. It does not say when to use this instead of get_conversation or get_briefing, so routing between siblings remains implied rather than explicit.

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