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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds substantial context beyond them: it states the return value (SPF/DKIM deliverability hints) and instructs the agent to relay them to the user, requires copying addresses exactly as the user provided, and specifies the form endpoint (action="/_tp/form.php" method="post" with name attributes). This is rich operational guidance.

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?

Purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded, followed by parameter handling, return-value guidance, and integration requirements. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the final form-integration sentence is dense and could be split. No wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description still discloses the return value and how to use it, states the prerequisite, and documents the required form markup. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and act on the result correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the 1-5 recipient constraint and, critically, the instruction to adopt addresses only as the user named them (a handling rule not expressible in the schema). The subject-prefix parameter is only implied via 'optional mit Betreff-Präfix', slightly less than the schema provides.

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: sets the recipient email address(es) the contact form of a turbopress AI Launch website sends to, including the 1-5 range and optional subject prefix. No sibling tool covers contact-form configuration, and the resource ('Kontaktformular einer Website') is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Nötig, bevor Formulare der Website funktionieren.' This tells the agent when the tool must run. It does not name alternative or competing tools, but there is no sibling overlap, so no exclusions are needed.

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