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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a real request is persisted, a human salesperson replies to that address, and the response window is under 24 business hours. This discloses the open-world side effect and its irreversibility in human terms, which the boolean hints alone could not convey. The instruction not to fabricate an email addresses the main failure mode of an outward-sending tool.

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 ordered by importance: what it does, when to use it, and the hard constraint on the email. Every sentence carries operational weight, and the safety guardrail is placed last where it is most likely to be read as a final check.

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?

With 7 parameters, full schema coverage and annotational hints, the description covers the essential gaps: real-world consequence, latency and data provenance. There is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the call returns (e.g., a confirmation or request identifier), leaving the agent unsure how to report success back to the user.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds only a restatement of the email constraint already present in the email parameter ('Tiene que ser un correo real de la persona'). The 'solo con datos que la persona te haya dado' line usefully scopes phone, company and comments, but no new syntax, units or precedence information is added.

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: 'Envía una solicitud de presupuesto real al equipo de ventas de Dipromotions'. The word 'real' makes clear this is an outward-facing submission to humans rather than a lookup, which implicitly separates it from buscar_catalogo and calcular_precio. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 a clear precondition for use: 'Úsalo solo con datos que la persona te haya dado y después de leerle lo que vas a enviar', which tells the agent both the data source and the confirmation step. It does not name alternatives or say when to prefer buscar_catalogo/calcular_precio first, so the routing guidance is context-based rather than explicit.

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