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

The annotation destructiveHint: true indicates potential side effects, and the description adds context by explaining that the business owner will be notified immediately via all enabled channels and will contact the customer directly. This goes beyond the annotation by describing the specific behavioral outcome, though it could further emphasize the irreversibility of the notification.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; there is no wasted wording.

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 send-type tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the prerequisite, and the immediate side effect. It lacks explicit detail about the return value or idempotency behavior, but the annotations (idempotentHint: false) and the schema's clientRequestId hint at retry semantics. Overall, it is adequately complete for a well-annotated 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema (e.g., 'visual details about damage, location, severity, and urgency' is in the message property description). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send a general inquiry') and clearly states the resource ('local service business'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from bookable services ('doesn't fit a specific bookable service'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like book_appointment and get_pricing.

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 provides clear when-to-use scenarios (question, custom quote, issue that doesn't fit a service) and a critical when-not-to-use condition ('ONLY call this if the business has 'inquiry' or 'email_inquiry' in its enabledFeatures array'). It implies alternatives for bookable services but does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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