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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external nature is already known. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the data use is reply-only, that consent and userAuthorized must be true, and that the result is a stored lead rather than a purchase or confirmed customer.

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 authorization requirement, then the required fields, then the lead-vs-customer clarification. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct constraint; only the repeated 'explicitly' framing adds minor redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a high-stakes external write with authorization semantics, the description covers the prerequisites, the data-use limitation, and the nature of the stored artifact — everything an agent needs to avoid mis-invoking it.

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 50% and the description compensates by naming the required inputs (contact method, selected product, concrete problem of at least 20 characters, consent=true, userAuthorized=true) and tying consent to the stated data-use agreement. It does not cover the optional name/company fields or the enum values for interest, but the critical gating parameters are explained.

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+resource ('Submit a private inquiry') and immediately scopes it to Zhiyong and a specific product. Distinguishable from siblings like submit_agent_feedback and submit_agent_observation, which are agent-initiated rather than human-authorized.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (human user explicitly asks and agrees to reply-only data use) and enumerates the false-positive conditions to avoid: browsing, Agent/MCP discovery, search, tool initialization. This is a textbook when/when-not statement.

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