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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: nothing is transmitted, no name/email/phone fields exist, and message text is exposed in the URL. That last point is a useful privacy/caching signal an agent would otherwise miss.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces before the caveats about what it does not do. Slightly dense ('It sends nothing and has no name, email or phone inputs') but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills the remaining gaps about PII and URL exposure. The only shortfall is the absence of explicit routing guidance against the related reporting/FAQ siblings.

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 75% and the description complements it by tying 'English or Spanish' to the language parameter and emphasizing the non-personal constraint on machine and message. It does not restate enum members or length limits, which 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 names a concrete artifact (a URL to the existing English or Spanish contact form) and its prefilled contents (topic, machine number, non-personal message). The line 'It sends nothing' separates it from the sibling report_machine_issue, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains that the person adds contact details on the page and presses Send, which suggests this is for handing off without collecting PII. It never explicitly says when to choose this instead of report_machine_issue or search_faq.

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