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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent call. The description adds the behavior that actually matters: a 10-per-hour rate limit, zero credit cost, a consent requirement, and a privacy constraint on what may be included. That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then consent rules, then privacy, then limits and cost — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense across three paragraphs and could be tightened, but every line carries operational information.

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 four-parameter write tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the consent gate, privacy limits, rate limit, and cost — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely. Return-value behavior is not needed since the call is fire-and-forget feedback.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add cross-parameter intent by explaining that tool_name and query_params should attach the Normi call being complained about, but it adds nothing about message, category, or the nested query_params shape beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a message from the user to the Normi team') and immediately grounds it with four concrete example categories (wrong number, missing commune, confusing result, feature request). This makes it unmistakably distinct from the analytical siblings like search_property_transactions or analyze_dpe_distribution.

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 states the only two triggering conditions (user asks, or user approves a proposed message) and an explicit prohibition ('Never send on your own initiative'). It also describes the offer-then-wait-for-yes protocol after a failed result, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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