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

Annotations already declare write/no-destroy/non-idempotent behavior. The description adds real value beyond them: drafts in non-permitted channels are discarded and flagged, nothing is actually sent, the call consumes the monthly analysis quota, and a per-company summary is returned.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and format, then appends operational caveats and the return summary. No padding; every clause carries 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?

For a mutation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the side effects, the quota consumption, the draft-filtering rule and the return summary. It stops short of error/dependency conditions, but is largely sufficient.

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% and the single parameter is documented as a complete results.json object. The description goes further by spelling out the expected shape ({ "version": 1, "items": [...] }) and pointing to the README, adding format detail beyond the schema blurb.

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+resource: it processes (saves and sends) analyses and drafts for one or more companies. Crucially it resolves the tension with its own name ('invia' = send) by clarifying that it saves without actually sending anything, so an agent knows the true effect.

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?

It gives context (the results.json format from the README, the treatment of drafts in non-permitted channels) but never states when to choose this tool over siblings like offerte_salva or portfolio_salva, nor prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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