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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states that submission creates an inquiry for human review and explicitly denies any implication of acceptance, payment terms, system access, or authority to act. It also instructs sanitization of sensitive data, which is a behavioral guideline. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The core instruction is front-loaded, followed by critical constraints and then the non-commitment disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 11 parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to cover parameter handling and expected outcomes. It explains the purpose and what submission does (creates an inquiry for human review) but does not address return values, error scenarios, or how to properly fill in the required fields. The lack of parameter guidance makes it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. However, it does not mention any of the 11 parameters (name, work_email, problem, etc.) or their purposes. It only gives general constraints like sanitization and authorization, which apply to inputs broadly but do not clarify individual fields. The description fails to help the agent understand what each parameter expects.

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 a specific action ('Submit a sanitized inquiry') and identifies the resource ('workflow inquiry to Quiet Stance'), with additional context about authorization and human review. The sibling tool (get_workflow_assessment_guidance) is obviously a read operation, so the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 clear prerequisite ('only after the user has explicitly authorized sending it') and constraints on content, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to the sibling as an alternative. It offers clear context without explicit exclusions.

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