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

With no annotations present, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses that a conversation is recorded, that the account's message quota is consumed, that a full-access key is required, and that a read-only key yields a 403. This is exactly the side-effect and auth context an agent needs before calling a write-ish operation.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, then constraints and side effects. No filler and nothing repeated.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, side effects (recorded conversation, quota consumption), and auth failure mode. Nothing material to correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so botId, message, and sessionId are already documented in the schema, including the session-continuation behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Send a visitor message') and resource ('to a chatbot and get its reply'), with the scope framed as the visitor's perspective. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like smartwebchat_list_chatbots or smartwebchat_create_chatbot 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: to test how the chatbot answers or to check whether its knowledge base covers a topic. It gives no named alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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