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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with the dryRun preview mechanism, which is not derivable from the annotations. It does not warn that repeated submissions may create duplicate requests despite idempotentHint=false.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the dryRun hint placed second. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the action and the preview mode. It leaves unstated what happens on successful submission (confirmation, delivery target, reversibility), a minor gap for a write tool.

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 every parameter including dryRun is already documented in the schema. The description's dryRun sentence restates the schema's own explanation rather than adding syntax, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (submit) and resource (contact/quote request) and identifies the recipient (Kolmo Construction). It is clear enough to distinguish from read-oriented siblings like get_my_quote, though it never explicitly contrasts with respond_to_quote or request_walkthrough, which are the nearest neighbors.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'contact or quote request,' and the dryRun sentence gives a preview path, but the description never states when to choose this over respond_to_quote or request_walkthrough, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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