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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the Bearer token requirement and 24-hour response time, which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether an enquiry record is created), return behavior, or idempotency, leaving significant behavioral aspects opaque.

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 purpose and alternatives, then auth and required inputs. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, auth, required parameter provenance, and expected latency. It lacks side-effect details but is otherwise complete for an enquiry submission tool.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, but the description adds critical context: product_config must come from configure_product output, and it names the required customer fields. This aids correct invocation beyond schema property descriptions.

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 that this is a legacy auth-required tool for sales team follow-up by email, distinct from the checkout flow. It names the alternative UCP flow, which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_checkout and complete_checkout.

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 provides when to use (customer wants sales follow-up by email) and when not to use (prefer UCP flow for credentialless checkout). It names specific alternative tools, giving clear actionable guidance.

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