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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it sends customer details to a third party, triggers designer follow-up, mirrors the pclosets.com/quote form, and requires explicit consent. It does not explain duplicate-submission behavior, but the idempotency annotation covers part of that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. The consent condition and required inputs follow logically, with 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?

For a 16-parameter form submission with no output schema, the description covers the key context an agent needs: the external recipient, consent requirement, required contact method, and that dimensions are needed. The schema handles detailed parameter semantics. Remaining gaps, such as what error or confirmation the caller receives, are minor given the rich input schema and annotations.

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 94%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters in detail. The description summarizes the required inputs (`name`, US ZIP, email or phone, closet type, dimensions), but adds little syntax or conditional guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is this high.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it sends the customer's closet details to Paradise Closets for a designer quote. It also identifies the equivalent web form and clarifies that this is a lead/quote request rather than an instant price estimate, which helps distinguish it from the sibling `closet_price_estimate`.

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 gives a clear condition for use: only call when the customer asked to be contacted and agreed to share their details. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as `closet_price_estimate` or `how_to_measure`, but the consent gate and required details provide strong usage context.

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