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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the draft is held two days, is unseen, is auto-deleted unless confirmed, and nothing is transmitted at this step. It does not describe the shape of the returned code or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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, then sequencing and preconditions, then data needs. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the second and third clauses are long and could be split for faster scanning.

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?

The two-step draft/confirm flow and the deletion policy are complete, and with no output schema the description appropriately points at the returned code. However, for an 8-parameter tool with near-zero schema coverage, the description leaves most optional parameters entirely undocumented, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

With 13% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description carries the burden but mostly does not. It loosely covers the required trio ('a way to reply' for contact_email, 'a description of the space or project' for space_description) and names three of the four inquiry_type enum values, omitting 'other'. message, agent_name, budget_range, and artworks_of_interest are never addressed.

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 and resource (prepare an inquiry draft to the studio) and immediately scopes the three inquiry categories. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that actually sends: 'send it with confirm_inquiry and the code this returns.'

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and the handoff condition: this step only drafts, and confirm_inquiry finalizes with the returned code. It also states the consent precondition ('only if they agree to be contacted') and the prerequisite inputs, leaving nothing to inference.

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