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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that email and message are required and implies a non-destructive submission. However, it omits details like confirmation, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. It is ideally concise for an agent to quickly grasp.

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?

Given the simple nature of a contact submission and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and required fields. It slightly misses on workflow details (e.g., response handling) but is sufficient for effective tool use.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed property descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'collect email conversationally'), providing some contextual value but not significantly enhancing understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting contact requests (correction, feature request, question, or other). It specifies verb ('submit') and resource ('contact request'), and distinguishes from sibling tools focused on searches and data retrieval.

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 description lists explicit use cases (report errors, suggest features, modify info, ask questions) and suggests a workflow ('collect email conversationally'). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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