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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'It never reports success unless the message actually left.' This reduces hallucination risk and clarifies that the tool performs a real external side effect, though it does not cover failure modes or rate limits.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and a key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 8-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, and success semantics well. It does not specify the exact return format, but the final sentence implies a success/failure report, which is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning for inquiry_type ('acquisition, exhibition or press'), contact_email ('a way to reply'), and space_description, but leaves several optional parameters like budget_range, artworks_of_interest, and message without explanation beyond their names.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Open a real enquiry with the studio') and a specific resource, with explicit types ('acquisition, exhibition or press'). It clearly distinguishes this from all sibling tools, which are browse/catalog/get/rank/recommend/search operations.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a genuine inquiry needs to be sent to the studio. It also states prerequisites ('Requires a way to reply and a description of the space or project'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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