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

The description discloses concrete behaviors: invite sends an email to the business, close drops the enquiry with an optional note. This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), clarifying the effects of each action. It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the team restriction and clearly state the two actions and the note's purpose. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the actions and parameters. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or any error conditions, which could be relevant for an agent deciding how to handle the result. Given the simplicity, it is sufficient but not complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the decision enum values ('invite' and 'close') and the note parameter ('optional note for us'). lead_id is implied as the enquiry identifier but not explicitly defined; however, its purpose is obvious from the context.

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 clearly states the tool's two actions: invite (emails the business) and close (drops the enquiry), and names the resource (enquiry). It is specific with a verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like op_decide_application, though the restriction to 'Awning team' and the lead context help distinguish it.

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 only guidance is the restriction 'Only for the Awning team', which limits who should use it but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as op_decide_application or other lead-related tools. No exclusions or conditions are provided beyond the team restriction.

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