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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context: original text is preserved, the customer's language code is passed through, and feasibility/price/certification/delivery are explicitly 'subject to review' (i.e., this is not an instant-quote tool). It says nothing about authorization, submission limits, or what happens after submission.

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?

The core English sentences are front-loaded and reasonably tight, but the final Korean sentence merely restates the opening in another language, adding length without new meaning. Field enumeration is dense but serviceable.

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 12-parameter submission tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified – half the parameters, plus the post-submission behavior and any constraints on the 'subject to review' flow.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names roughly six fields (company, contact email, country, subject, details, language code) but leaves manager_name, quantity, specifications, contact_phone, contact_info, and inquiry_category completely undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Accept worldwide B2B inquiries') and scopes it with the product domains it covers (HVAC/cleanroom filters, nanofiber materials, textiles, cosmetics). No sibling tool overlaps, so the agent can identify this immediately.

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?

The description tells the agent what information to collect ('Ask for company, contact email, destination country, subject and details'), which is implicit usage guidance. However, it never states when this tool should or should not be used versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., language handling rules as a precondition).

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