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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it reaches an external party (the client), the mutation to contract amount is conditional on client approval, and it names the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access).

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the first two sentences are near-verbatim duplicates ('Email a change order...' / 'Emails the change order...'), which wastes space. The remaining sentences (approval effect, confirmation, auth) each earn their place.

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 send tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: external recipient, conditional contract change, confirmation requirement, and auth. Return format is unspecified but not essential for an emailing action.

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% and both parameters are already documented (message as email body, change_order_id sourced from create_change_order). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb (email/send) and resource (change order) and its downstream effect (online approval and e-signature), which clearly separates it from create_change_order and list_change_orders. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the action 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?

It gives clear context: this is for sending an existing change order to the client, approval is the client's decision, and the contract amount only updates afterward. It also states the confirmation expectation before each call. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but usage is well framed.

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