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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by signaling that it provides guidance rather than performing an action and by explicitly disclaiming pricing and turnaround commitments. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and an explicit limitation with no filler. The essential 'how to prepare' message is front-loaded before the clarifying disclaimer.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with rich annotations, the description covers what the tool provides and what it does not promise. It does not describe the output format, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's guidance-like nature reduce the need for that detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description has no obligation to document parameters. Its mention of 'required fields' is domain guidance rather than parameter documentation, and no parameter semantics are missing.

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 tool as providing guidance on preparing a contact request, including required fields and engagement boundaries. It is less explicit about how this differs from the sibling prepare_contact_request, but the informational versus action-oriented framing is evident.

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 phrase 'How to prepare a contact request' gives clear context for when this tool is relevant, and 'No pricing or turnaround promises' is an explicit exclusion telling the agent what not to expect. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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