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

The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that despite being a create operation (readOnlyHint=false), it only creates a draft suggestion and does not send anything. It also describes where it appears (inline in composer). However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects on conversation state.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the tool's context (inbox composer, inbound events, replyPolicy) and explains what it does not do. Given the output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. It misses some details like error behavior or interaction with other tools, but overall is sufficiently complete for a creation tool with well-documented parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds overall context by mentioning replyPolicy='suggest', which relates to the sourceMessageId parameter, but does not provide new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Create' and the specific resource 'draft reply suggestion' that appears inline in the FavCRM Inbox composer. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools like create_note or create_invoice by specifying the exact use case (reply suggestion in inbox composer), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for message.inbound events with replyPolicy="suggest"') and what it does not do ('does not send anything to the customer'). This provides clear usage context, though it could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., avoid for outbound messages).

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