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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered; the description adds that it 'submits immediately' (no confirmation step, non-idempotent in practice) and that the email must be the real person's, plus a 24-hour response SLA. It stops short of stating whether a duplicate submission creates a second inquiry or what happens on failure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and SLA, then the qualifying use case, then the routing rule and the consent warning. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what to expect back (a reply within 24 hours, weekends included). Combined with 100% parameter coverage and explicit sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is 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 all five parameters (name, site, email, company, message) are already documented. The description reinforces the email constraint ('must be theirs and correct'), but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 concrete verb+resource ('Describe a project in writing and get a reply') plus the concrete outcome (reply within 24 hours, weekends included). It also draws a hard line against the sibling submit_urgent_request, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use submit_urgent_request instead when a site is down or losing money now') and characterizes the qualifying work with examples: rebuild, migration, integration, second opinion. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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