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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral facts: this is an outbound side effect that causes third parties (driving schools) to contact the user, and that the user's name and contact details are transmitted to them. It omits secondary traits such as reversibility, failure behavior, or what the call returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the consent constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 PII-sharing mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical consent gate and the consequence of sharing contact details. It stops short of explaining what happens after submission (success/failure, whether schools' offers return via this tool) or the meaning of the message/category parameters, which is the remaining gap.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for userConsent (the consent flag must be true only when the user has agreed) and restates the 1–3 bound on schoolIds that the schema enforces via min/maxItems, but message, category, name and contact are left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb (send), resource (the user's enquiry), recipients (1–3 driving schools) and the resulting action (schools contact the user with an offer). This is clearly a mutating outreach tool, making it trivially distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings get_school, search_schools, compare_schools and list_cities.

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 description gives an explicit gating condition: 'ONLY call this when the user has explicitly asked for it and agreed that their name and contact details are shared with the selected schools', and ties it to setting userConsent=true. It states both when to call and the precondition that must hold, leaving nothing to inference.

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