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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the idempotency key reuse instruction, adding practical context. It also discloses the prerequisite of user confirmation and explicitly lists what it does not do, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, each purposeful and front-loaded: action first, then prerequisite, then idempotency, then exclusions. No filler or redundancy. The structure maximizes clarity in minimal space.

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 tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow (user confirmation, idempotency, and exclusions). It does not describe the return behavior or success response, but the core invocation requirements are well covered, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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), so the description carries significant responsibility. It clarifies idempotencyKey (reuse for retries) and confirmed (explicit user confirmation), but leaves draftId and previewToken unexplained beyond the implicit 'prepared preview'. This is partial compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Send') and resource ('prepared preview and attachments through the website inquiry workflow'), and it clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on submission after preparation. The action is unambiguous and distinct from prepare_inquiry and request_inquiry_access.

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?

Explicitly instructs to show the full preview and obtain explicit user confirmation immediately before calling, which is a clear when-to-use condition. Also specifies idempotency key reuse for retries and lists exclusions (no status checks, scheduling, etc.). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools as alternatives, though the exclusions imply what this tool is not for.

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