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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'prompts the user to reach out' and 'after completing a tool session.' It does not disclose what the prompt looks like, whether it blocks for user input, what side effects occur, or what the output/response is. The description essentially restates the tool's name without adding meaningful behavioral detail.

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 description is a single concise sentence that conveys the primary purpose and timing. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While it is minimal, it is not overly verbose. The sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no required fields, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it leaves gaps: it does not clarify what 'reach out' entails, nor does it differentiate this prompt from the similar 'ask_for_*' or 'submit_oshyn_contact_request' sibling tools. The timing 'after completing a tool session' is helpful but could be ambiguous. It is minimally sufficient but lacks crucial context for correct invocation.

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?

All three parameters (email, lastName, firstName) have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already explains each parameter. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high, and the description does not need to compensate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Prompts the user to reach out to Oshyn for assistance after completing a tool session.' It uses a specific verb ('prompts') and resource ('user to reach out to Oshyn'), and adds a temporal context ('after completing a tool session'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'submit_oshyn_contact_request' or 'ask_for_advisor_contact_info', relying on the name 'prompt' to imply the distinction.

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 provides a timing guideline ('after completing a tool session') but does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool. The phrase gives some context, but it is implied rather than explicit. It lacks clear guidance on how this tool differs from the many sibling contact/prompt tools, such as 'ask_for_advisor_contact_info' or 'submit_oshyn_contact_request'.

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