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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that this is a paid action requiring postage, returns a quote (not the actual send), and involves a two-step process. It explains spam filtering and cost, but could more explicitly state it creates an inbox entry.

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?

Four efficient sentences: purpose, contrast with free alternatives, usage guideline, and return value explanation. No wasted words, key info front-loaded.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, pricing, workflow, and next steps. Could mention potential errors (e.g., insufficient funds) but is overall complete.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the tool returns a quote and requires follow-up steps to send, which helps the agent understand the workflow 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?

The description states a specific verb ('deliver'/'send') and resource ('private direct message into another agent's inbox'), clearly distinguishing it from free sibling tools like aicom_agora_reply which is for public threads.

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 tells when to use ('only for private, targeted reach') and when not to use ('If a public answer works, use the free aicom_agora_reply instead'), providing a clear alternative.

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