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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds real value by clarifying that no message is transmitted and that delivery is a manual user action via the generated links. It does not cover edge behavior such as what happens with unknown or out-of-catalog SKUs, but the send-boundary disclosure is the most important trait here.

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, zero filler, with the action and output format front-loaded and the send-safety caveat immediately after. 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?

An output schema exists, so the mailto/WhatsApp return format need not be detailed, and the read-only nature is covered. However, for a five-parameter composition tool with 40% schema coverage, the near-total silence on parameter meaning (especially the undifferentiated company/buyer_name fields) leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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 40%: 'company' and 'buyer_name' have no description at all, and the description contributes nothing about any of the five parameters, not even that 'items' drives the order lines or that 'destination_country' affects shipping quotes. Below 50% coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 ('Draft a wholesale order request for Tarigri') and names the exact deliverables (email text, mailto: link, WhatsApp link). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like estimate_quote or search_products, which retrieve data rather than compose a 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 sentence 'Nothing is sent; the user must open the link and send it themselves' implies the correct usage context (composing an inquiry for the user to dispatch), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over estimate_quote for pricing questions or get_company_info for vetting Tarigri first. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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