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

Goes beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive annotations by disclosing that it persists a contact-interest record, returns only public contact information, and does not send or forward messages. This prevents the common false assumption that the tool delivers the inquiry on the agent's behalf.

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 with no filler; the primary effect and the critical limitation are both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The return artifact is described (public email and inquiry/mailto URL), which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, with seven parameters and low schema coverage, the description should also clarify which inputs shape the inquiry and how the target listing is addressed.

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 only 29%, and the description does not explain how slug/category identify the listing or how message/event_date/guest_count/wedding_location map to the prepared inquiry. The phrase 'prepared wedding inquiry' hints at a relationship but provides no concrete parameter-level guidance.

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 concrete action ('Record high-intent contact interest') plus the delivered outcome (public email and a prepared wedding inquiry). It clearly differentiates from sibling read/search tools by emphasizing this tool creates a contact-interest record rather than just looking up information.

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?

Clearly tells the agent that the tool does not forward or deliver the message and that the returned email or mailto URL must be used for actual contact. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct when-to-use versus search_vendor decision, so one point is lost.

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