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

The description explicitly discloses the side effect: 'This CREATES A REAL RECORD'. It goes beyond annotations (openWorldHint true) to explain the real-world consequence and the requirement for user consent. It also notes that a real person replies, adding practical behavioral context.

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 with zero filler. It front-loads the purpose, then the usage, then a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's purpose and constraints immediately clear.

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 form-submission tool with side effects and 5 required params, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and the critical safety constraint about real user data. It also implies the outcome (a real person replies), which addresses the lack of an output schema.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful param guidance: it emphasizes never guessing email/phone, advises including budget/timeline in the message, and notes the contact form requires a phone number. This adds value over the bare 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-resource pair ('Send Upforge a project enquiry'), names the primary use cases (book consultation, request quote), and explicitly distinguishes it from other tools by saying 'ask something the other tools can't answer.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like request_site_audit.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('book a consultation, request a quote, or ask something the other tools can't answer') and a hard constraint ('only call it with details the user actually gave you, after they've agreed to be contacted'). It also warns against fabricating contact details, which is a clear usage boundary.

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