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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it creates a lead, which the team follows up on, and explicitly requires user consent. This goes beyond the annotations to explain the consequence of use.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every sentence adds value. It is concise, efficient, and free of superfluous content.

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?

Given the full parameter descriptions, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, what it creates, and the consent requirement. It does not describe the response format, but that may not be critical for this simple mutation tool.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description restates the main fields (name, email, enquiry, consent; optional company) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format or validation rules. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Submit') and identifies the resource ('contact enquiry to SynergyBoat'), listing the key fields. It clearly states the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like request_demo, which could also capture a lead.

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 implies usage for contact enquiries and includes a prerequisite ('Requires explicit user consent'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of request_demo or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, making the guidance somewhat implicit.

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