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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it runs against the user's real inbox, returns an address and reference code, requires the user to send the first email, and describes how the desk replies. It also warns that there is no address parameter, adding important context beyond any schema.

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?

Although the description is three paragraphs, every sentence serves a purpose: defining the tool, giving usage conditions, explaining the workflow, and clarifying parameter limitations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what the tool returns (address and code), what the user must do, how the desk behaves, where the reply arrives, and the next step (polling check_email_demo). No important behavioral detail is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds extra value by explicitly stating 'there is no address parameter' and explaining why the desk cannot be told to send anywhere, clarifying the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Start a demo of the EMAIL channel', and clearly differentiates from the sibling start_intake_demo by contrasting the real inbox vs. this conversation. It also states the concrete purpose of demonstrating email handling.

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 usage conditions are given: 'Use it when the text demo (start_intake_demo) has landed and they want to see the real thing, or when they ask how it handles email.' It also names the alternative start_intake_demo and instructs to poll check_email_demo afterward, providing clear when-to-use and next-step guidance.

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