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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Free, not forwarded, not counted' discloses the absence of billing, delivery, and quota side effects. It does not mention auth requirements or what the returned judgment looks like, but the schema covers the api_key prerequisite.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the safety/cost guarantees, then usage. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers intent, cost, and side effects but never hints at the shape of the result beyond the verb 'judge' (e.g. a label/verdict). An agent knows how to call it but not quite what it gets back.

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 all four parameters including form_id format (f_...) and api_key format (dm_live_...) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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: judging a sample message against a form's settings. It is clearly distinguishable from list/create/update siblings, though it never explicitly names its closest sibling, doorman_send_test_delivery, so the boundary between 'test submission' and 'test delivery' is left to inference.

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 clear context ('after setup') and even suggests a test strategy (one genuine enquiry and one sales pitch). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or contrasting it with doorman_send_test_delivery, which is the most likely alternative an agent would consider.

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