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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers: it discloses what gets attached (plan, forms, recent errors, never keys) and where the reply goes (account email). This is useful behavioral context for a send operation, though it doesn't state rate limits or whether the action is idempotent.

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?

Tight, front-loaded prose that answers what, why, what's included, and where the reply goes in three sentences. No waste.

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?

Covers the key details for a support-contact tool: what it does, what data is attached, and that the reply is emailed. Missing only minor details like whether the message is required (though schema covers that) or expected response. Good completeness given no output 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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the api_key header note. The description mentions attaching the error ('with the error you hit') which maps to the error parameter, but adds little beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action (send a support problem) and target (Doorman's founder), with a clear outcome ('reply goes to the account email'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but no sibling covers support-contact, so the purpose reads clearly.

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?

Provides clear context: use when stuck or something isn't working, and explicitly says 'Use it instead of guessing at a fix.' This gives the when-to-use condition without naming alternative tools, which is sufficient for a one-off support tool.

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