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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-and-not-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that submission happens under the rendering app's identity, but says nothing about what the submission creates, error handling, or rate limits.

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, no filler, and the critical routing signal is front-loaded with "Internal." and the exclusion clause. Every sentence 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?

For an 8-parameter write tool with five required fields, no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent unable to reason about inputs or outcomes. It correctly diverts the agent away, but if it is ever invoked the description provides no operational footing.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it supplies no information about any of them. Required fields like primaryGoal, consentPrivacy (a const true constraint) and renderedAt (likely an anti-bot timestamp) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Submits the WebWeaver Nexus contact form") and scopes it to being invoked by the rendering app, which separates it from get_contact_form. The qualifier "on behalf of the app that renders it" is a little abstract, but an agent can still tell exactly what the tool does.

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?

Explicit when-not ("Not for direct use") paired with a named alternative and the action to take instead ("call get_contact_form and let the user complete the form"). This is the strongest possible routing guidance for a tool agents should avoid invoking themselves.

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