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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: it only reports success when the message actually left, which tells the agent how to interpret the response. It does not cover duplicate-submission risk beyond the idempotency hint already in 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisites, and response semantics, front-loaded with the action.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the intent, the required inputs, and the success-reporting contract. The remaining gap is the under-documented optional parameters (budget_range, artworks_of_interest), which leaves the agent guessing at expected formats.

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 only 13% (just agent_name), so the description must compensate and does so only partially: 'a way to reply' maps to contact_email and 'a description of the space or project' to space_description, and the inquiry types are echoed. Nothing is said about budget_range, artworks_of_interest, message, or contact_name.

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 ('Open a real enquiry with the studio') and enumerates the inquiry domains (acquisition, exhibition, press). It is unmistakably distinct from the read-only catalog siblings.

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 clear context plus prerequisites ('Requires a way to reply and a description of the space or project'), which tells the agent what must be supplied before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the siblings are unrelated read tools so that omission is minor.

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