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

Annotations only declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the substantive behavior: a draft (not a live inquiry), a returned reviewUrl for user-side submission, an accessToken that must be kept private, and the fact that drafts are not handed to sales. Those non-obvious privacy and lifecycle constraints are exactly what annotations cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and gating condition, then the return value and the prohibitions. No filler; every sentence adds a constraint or a behavioral fact an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the reviewUrl/accessToken return is well covered and the safety flow is described. However, for an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and two nested object parameters, the total absence of parameter-level guidance leaves the invocation under-specified.

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 0% across 8 parameters, including nested 'details' and 'requirements' objects, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It only hints at the offeringId enum via the word 'docks' and says nothing about useCase, company, contactName, email, required vs optional fields, or the requirements structure.

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 ('Prepare a private inquiry draft') plus the gating condition ('only when the buyer wants to contact docks'). The line about returning a reviewUrl for 'explicit submission' implicitly separates it from the sibling submit_inquiry, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives a clear when-condition ('only when the buyer wants to contact docks') and an explicit when-not ('Do not open or approve it on their behalf'), which implies submit_inquiry is the follow-on. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or describing the full prepare→review→submit handoff, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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