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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), the description discloses what actually happens: the request lands in the supplier's own Reevol inbox and they reply by email, or Reevol routes a lead with different handling for verified vs. unclaimed suppliers. It does not address duplicate submissions or the response shape, which is the remaining gap.

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-loads the core action in one sentence, then branches into the two paths in a logical order with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries operational information; only the parenthetical field list borders on list-dumping.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers both execution paths, the key requirements, and the downstream consequence for the buyer. It omits what the caller gets back and how to handle repeat submissions, which an agent would want for a non-idempotent write.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description carries real weight and does: it explains that buyerName and buyerEmail should be the buyer's real details and that briefSnippet must be a specific brief naming products, quantities, and destination. `slug` and `buyerCompany` are left implicit, which keeps it short of a 5.

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: submit a buyer's interest in a specific supplier, and immediately distinguishes the two resulting behaviors (supplier inbox vs. Reevol-routed lead). This is clearly separable from siblings like get_supplier, request_supplier_listing, and draft_rfq.

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 an explicit decision rule: if get_supplier returned a `catalog` block use the direct inbound path, otherwise a routed lead is created. It also states plan/key prerequisites per path (no key needed vs. partner or enterprise key), so the agent knows when it can and cannot use this.

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