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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavior: it is not an offer or valuation, requires explicit user confirmation, and is safe for retries. No contradiction with annotations, and the added details are useful.

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?

Four short, focused sentences. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by key instructions and exclusions. Efficient and well-structured, though the exclusions at the end could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Covers the submission workflow and exclusions, but does not describe the expected response or the role of draftId and previewToken. Since there is no output schema, a note on what happens after submission would be helpful. Also, it does not explicitly state that prepare_inquiry should be called first, though it is implied.

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 only 20% (only accessToken has a description). The description mentions 'prepared preview', 'idempotency key', and 'confirmation', which map to previewToken, idempotencyKey, and confirmed, but does not explain draftId or previewToken explicitly. This is partial compensation for the low coverage, but not comprehensive.

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?

Clearly states the tool sends prepared preview and attachments through the inquiry workflow, and clarifies it is not an offer or valuation. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, though it implies a preparation step and separate access request.

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 clear usage prerequisites: show the full preview, get explicit user confirmation, and reuse the idempotency key on retry. It also states what it does not do (status checks or private data). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like prepare_inquiry or request_inquiry_access, but the context makes the submission step clear.

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