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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (not read-only, not idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: immediate submission with no confirmation email, same-day/eight-hour triage including weekends and multiple time zones, and that the reply arrives by phone or WhatsApp.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then triage SLA, then submission behavior and the consent/phone caveat. The long symptom list is informative but slightly padded; still, every sentence carries actionable content.

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?

Covers what the tool does, how fast, how the reply comes back, and the consent prerequisite. With full schema coverage and no output schema, the remaining gap is only the absence of an explicit non-urgent alternative route.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the phone country-code and optional-email semantics. The description only reinforces the phone requirement ('send a real phone number'), adding little beyond 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?

Names a specific action (submit an urgent/broken-site request) and enumerates the concrete conditions that qualify it — checkout failure, hack, lockout, white screen. This is clearly distinguishable from non-urgent siblings like submit_project_inquiry or request_consultation.

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 real usage context: it is for sites broken 'now' with same-day triage, and it explicitly instructs the agent to 'ask the person before calling this' and to supply a real phone number. It doesn't explicitly name the non-urgent alternative to route to, which keeps it from a 5.

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