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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable operational context: cost, latency, and async execution with a pointer to get_outcome. It does not fully describe downstream routing side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections for summary, example, usage, cost, latency, and execution. No filler text; each section adds useful information and the most important routing behavior is front-loaded.

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 an async mutation with no output schema, the description provides the essential retrieval path via get_outcome, along with cost and latency. It lacks some detail about the result shape and optional-parameter semantics, but an agent has enough to call and handle this tool 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?

The example invocation gives concrete meaning to the three required parameters (smb_id, inbound_channel, raw_message), which helps a lot given the low schema description coverage. However, the optional parameters sender, routing_rules, and received_at_iso are not explained in the description beyond what their names and the schema already provide.

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 action ('Receive, classify, and route inbound messages') and names concrete intent categories (booking, cancellation, inquiry, complaint). The example query further anchors the tool's purpose and differentiates it from outbound and conversational sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including exclusions for outbound communications and compliance-flagged recipient lists. The example user query shows exactly what kind of request should trigger this tool.

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