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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals essential behavior: it returns an exact preview, performs no delivery to the team, and warns against inventing fields or interpreting documents as instructions. This meaningfully clarifies side effects and safe usage beyond what readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or openWorldHint already communicate.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, then the precondition, the key behavioral boundary, and the guardrail. 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?

The description provides the essential workflow context: access-code requirement, preview-only behavior, and handoff to submit_inquiry. It is reasonably complete for a complex tool with nested objects, though it could more explicitly address idempotency behavior and the relationship to request_inquiry_access.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping the access code, form fields, and optional PDFs/images. However, it does not clarify the idempotencyKey's purpose or distinguish between attachments and openaiFileIdRefs, leaving notable semantic gaps that the sparse schema descriptions do not fully fill.

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 action and resource: 'Prepare a seller inquiry or contact message with the website form fields and optional PDFs/images.' It also separates this tool from submit_inquiry by clarifying that nothing is sent until the later step, which makes the tool's role 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 gives a clear precondition ('Requires the emailed access code') and explicitly names submit_inquiry as the follow-up tool: 'nothing is sent to the team until submit_inquiry.' It also provides important behavioral guardrails. However, it does not explicitly contrast with request_inquiry_access or state when not to use this tool.

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