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

The description transparently discloses the side effect of recording interest and explicitly notes that no message is forwarded or delivered, which is important behavioral context not present in the annotations. It could go further by mentioning persistence or data retention, but it covers the main effects.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action and result, and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives the outcome and a key caveat, but does not explain how inputs relate to the output, which fields are expected, or what the prepared inquiry contains.

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?

With only 29% schema coverage and no parameter-level explanation in the description, the agent gets little guidance on how slug, message, event_date, guest_count, or wedding_location should be used. The phrase 'prepared wedding inquiry' hints at their purpose but does not clarify requirements or format.

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 identifies the action ('Record high-intent contact interest'), the target resource (vendor/venue contact), and the expected outcome (public email and prepared inquiry). It also distinguishes itself by stating it does not forward or deliver the message.

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 explains the tool's behavior and limitation, but it does not explicitly state when an agent should choose this tool over siblings like search_nc_wedding_directory or get_nc_wedding_vendor. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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