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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the form locks after client completion except questionnaires, that a default email template is used when subject/message are absent, that confirmation is on by default and can be switched off, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. These are exactly the side effects and auth requirements an agent needs and are not derivable from readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, but the middle sentences are choppy and partly redundant ('Emails the form to the client with a link to it' restates the opening; the confirmation point is split across two sentences). It is slightly verbose without being padded senselessly.

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 3-parameter email-and-lock mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: default template behavior, post-completion locking, confirmation policy, reach scope, and auth. It stops short of describing the response (e.g. what the send returns or whether resending is possible), which would complete the picture.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the default behavior of subject/message ('uses your default email template'), which the schema already documents identically, and adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond it.

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 (Email) and resource (proposal, contract, questionnaire or sub-agreement form) with the recipient (the client). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like dubsado_send_invoice, dubsado_apply_form_template, and dubsado_get_form_responses 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?

Explains the default-template behavior when subject/message are omitted and that the caller should confirm before each call because it reaches other people. However, it never names the alternative tools (e.g. send_invoice vs send_form, or apply_form_template as a prerequisite) or states when NOT to use it, so routing context is implied rather than explicit.

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