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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent, adding the access restriction and the important default behavior (only new enquiries unless status is given). It doesn't say anything about result volume or ordering, which would matter for an ops inbox listing.

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?

Dense but every clause carries information: restriction, source, fields, default, status semantics, next step, exclusion. Slightly run-on in the middle with parenthetical asides, but the access restriction is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool, an agent has enough to call it correctly and route afterwards. Missing only peripheral details such as ordering, pagination or maximum number of enquiries returned.

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% and already enumerates the status values, so the bar is a baseline 3; the description goes beyond it by naming the default ('new') and explaining that converted means the person filled in the questionnaire, which is business meaning the enum label alone doesn't convey.

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 concrete resource (enquiries from the awning.help/business page) plus what each record contains (email, optional business name), and explicitly separates it from the two nearest siblings, op_decide_lead and op_applications.

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 when to use it ('see who asked to join'), what to do next ('then op_decide_lead') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for applications that are already filled in (op_applications)'). It also states the access precondition (Awning team only).

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