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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that no operator is contacted until a human reviews the enquiry, and that consent:true is required. This goes beyond the idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations and helps the agent understand the side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is three concise sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides key behavioral exclusions and usage prerequisites. Every sentence carries important information without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (13 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core behavioral contract, usage conditions, and consent requirement. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing to know return values. The safety-relevant information is fully disclosed.

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 high (92%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by emphasizing that consent must be true and that contact details must come from the user, which clarifies the intended meaning of several parameters (contactName, email, location). This lifts it to a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Queue') and clearly names the resource ('an enquiry for a human to review'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from an order or task, which differentiates it from sibling tools like quote_task or get_use_cases.

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 states clear usage conditions: only after the user explicitly agrees, and only with contact details the user provided. It also explicitly says what this tool does NOT do (does not create a task, no operator contacted until review), providing strong when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance.

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