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

Annotations already reveal the write/non-idempotent profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description earns credit for adding constraints outside structured data: the privacy rule 'Leave out secrets' and the consent coupling — contact_email is only supplied together with email_consent:true and only for a single ship notification. It still omits what happens after submission and duplicate-request behavior, which matters for a non-idempotent call.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the parameter guidance; the terse 'Leave out secrets' clause manages to earn its place as a safety rule. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 submission tool with no output schema and only safety-oriented annotations, the description covers the request shape and the email consent path but is silent on what the caller gets back, how long review takes, and whether repeated submissions duplicate — gaps an agent would want before invoking.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it largely does: 'the task' maps to description, 'optionally example input and output' maps to the two example fields, and it explains the contact_email/email_consent relationship — a cross-field constraint absent from the schema. It does not mention length caps or that description is required.

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 states a specific verb and object — ask for a tool that does not yet exist — and scopes it with 'that does not exist yet', which cleanly separates it from siblings like search, execute, and save_tool that operate on existing tools. An agent can identify the intent without opening the 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?

The conditional 'a tool that does not exist yet' implies the agent should only call this after determining no existing tool fits, but no sibling is named as the prior step (e.g., search first, save_tool for existing ones). Guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no when-not-to-use cases are given beyond the existence qualifier.

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