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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the description's job is narrower. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is the receiving endpoint for the rendered form and is mediated by the user, which explains why direct invocation is wrong. It stops short of saying what happens on submit (rate limits, confirmation, whether a duplicate submission creates a duplicate lead).

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the 'Internal' qualifier is front-loaded so the agent's routing decision happens in the first word.

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?

The description is arguably complete for its main job — telling the agent not to call it — but with a 7-parameter write tool at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, an agent that did invoke it would know nothing about the payload or the response. The routing guidance compensates partially but not fully.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and supplies almost none. It implies values arrive from the user-completed form, but nothing explains required fields like renderedAt, primaryGoal's tier enum, or consentPrivacy being pinned to true.

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 ('Submits the WebWeaver Nexus contact form') and names the acting context ('on behalf of the app that renders it'). It also clearly separates itself from the sibling get_contact_form, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 an explicit exclusion ('Not for direct use') and the exact alternative plus the condition that selects it ('call get_contact_form and let the user complete the form'). This is as directive as usage guidance gets.

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