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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description does the full disclosure work, and it does so well: it reveals a two-phase confirmation flow, states that the first call returns a summary and a privacy notice to show the user, and that nothing is sent until the user confirms. It omits failure behavior, idempotency, and any rate/auth constraints, which keeps it from 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the purpose comes first, followed by the two-step procedure in execution order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, the sequencing, and what the first call gives back (summary plus privacy notice). It leaves out what happens on errors or whether a request can be revoked, which is a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping parameters into two phases (user details plus message first, confirm_token second) and clarifying that the request is only dispatched after confirmation.

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 and resource: 'Ask this company to contact the user (by email or phone) about something,' which is concrete enough that an agent can tell it apart from siblings like request_audit, get_offer, or book_meeting. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Provides explicit two-step invocation guidance: 'First call with the user's details and message' and 'Only after they confirm, call again with confirm_token.' This is strong procedural usage context, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over a sibling or when not to use it at all.

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