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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the reply is asynchronous and human ('The team replies personally by e-mail'), and sends must be authorized by the person using their own address. It omits failure behavior and rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the qualifying examples and the consent constraint. The parenthetical example list is slightly long but each item earns its place by clarifying eligible requests; nothing is redundant.

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 non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: the request is delivered to a human team with an asynchronous e-mail reply, and the send must be on behalf of the person. Remaining gaps (error handling, rate limits, whether the message persists) are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 three parameters (name, email, message) are already documented in the schema, including format and length limits. The description reinforces the email parameter's meaning ('with their own e-mail address') but adds no format, syntax, or content guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Forwards a question or request ... to the oqda team') and enumerates concrete qualifying cases (business fit, Enterprise for 11+ locations, data protection request). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like join_waitlist, get_pricing, and compare_alternatives without opening any 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?

It gives concrete when-to-use examples and an explicit constraint ('Only send on behalf of the person, with their own e-mail address'), which tells the agent the delegation precondition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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