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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that this sends a 'real inquiry' and that PaKi will notify César via Telegram and follow up personally, making clear this triggers actual human communication rather than being a simulation.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how the inquiry is handled, and when to use it. No redundant phrases or unnecessary details, and the most critical information is placed first.

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 realistic action tool with no output schema and 8 parameters, the description adequately explains the purpose, process (Telegram notification, personal follow-up), and target audience. It doesn't specify response times or reversibility, but the process description provides a reasonable level of completeness.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all 8 parameters, each with its own description. The tool description adds overall context (acquisition vs collaboration) but does not clarify parameter-specific syntax or formats beyond what the schema already contains, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Send' and names the recipients (PaKi and César Yagüe) and purposes (acquiring artworks, collaboration, other matters). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_artworks and recommend_for_space by being the action-oriented inquiry submission tool.

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 final sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when a client, architect, gallery, hotel, or collaborator expresses genuine interest.' This clearly indicates appropriate scenarios, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions beyond the 'genuine interest' qualifier.

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