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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the message lands in the order thread rather than being a fire-and-forget email, the team replies by e-mail, and reference plus the order's e-mail are prerequisites. It stops short of stating whether the email must match the order owner or what happens on a mismatch.

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 compact sentences, no waste: action first, then the side effect and prerequisites, then the sibling routing. Front-loaded and readable.

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 non-destructive write with three required params and no output schema, the description covers the action, its observable effect (lands in the order, reply by e-mail), and required inputs. Minor gap: no indication of validation failures (e.g., unknown reference) or whether the reply is asynchronous.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it usefully disambiguates two of three params: 'reference' is the order reference and 'email' is specifically the order's e-mail address (not an arbitrary sender). The 'message' param is left implicit, but its meaning is evident from the tool's purpose.

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 (sends) and resource (question or change request about an existing order to the team), which is unambiguous to an agent. It also names the sibling request_quote as the wrong tool for new requests, so message_team is distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given ('about an existing order') and an explicit alternative with its triggering condition ('For something new use request_quote'). The agent has both the positive and the exclusionary routing rule.

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