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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that this acts 'on behalf of a user' and that dryRun avoids 'actually submitting' - explicitly explaining the side-effect boundary. That extra context goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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. The main action is stated first, followed by the single important usage caveat (dryRun). Every word 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?

The tool has an output schema and full parameter documentation, so the remaining context burden is small. The description covers the behavioral essentials: what is submitted, on whose behalf, and how to preview instead of submit. Minor missing context like authentication requirements is not critical given the annotations and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented there. The description only mentions dryRun by name and does not add meaning for other parameters, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage and the straightforward nature of the fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and names the precise resource ('contact or quote request to Kolmo Construction on behalf of a user'). It clearly differentiates itself from the many read-only get/list/check sibling tools by conveying that this is the action tool for contacting the company.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use dryRun: true as a preview mode, which is an important usage branching condition. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools, but the action/resource distinction from siblings plus the dryRun workflow is enough to orient an agent.

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