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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description clarifies that the only mutation is the draft itself and that nothing is submitted, emailed or deleted, which materially reduces mis-invocation risk. It also discloses the return contents and the caveat that delivery dates may be indicative. A minor gap remains: it never says whether re-calling overwrites prior draft state versus merging.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then prerequisites, then behavior and exclusions in a logical order. Every sentence carries information, though the returned-field enumeration is slightly list-like and could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the returned fields (fit, offering, estimate, modules with price and effort) and the delivery-date caveat. Prerequisite, mutation semantics, and non-goals are all covered for a tool with a nested 3-parameter schema.

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 100%, so the nested contact object, its required name/email and optional company/phone are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the required/optional split without adding format or validation semantics, so it sits at the baseline.

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 ('Prepare a project inquiry draft') plus the scope ('for the customer to review before it is submitted'). It also explicitly separates itself from the write path ('This tool does not submit the inquiry'), which distinguishes it from the sibling submit-project-inquiry-tool.

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 prerequisite ('Run plan-project-tool first and provide the existing project_context_id') and an explicit re-use rule ('The draft can be changed by calling this tool again'). Combined with the negative statement about submitting, an agent knows both when to call it and when not to.

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