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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation with side effects, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral information beyond the annotations by explaining that dryRun previews the submission without actually sending it, and it clarifies the action is performed 'on behalf of a user.' It does not cover auth or duplicate risks, but the annotations and dryRun guidance cover the main behavioral concerns.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the dryRun preview behavior placed second. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 a fully documented six-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining contextual essentials: what action is taken, who receives the request, and the special preview mode. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents all six parameters clearly. The description only restates the dryRun behavior already described in the schema and adds no new parameter-level semantics or formatting guidance.

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 the specific verb 'Submit' and names the resource and destination: 'a contact or quote request to Kolmo Construction.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the read-oriented get/list/check sibling tools. The phrase 'on behalf of a user' also adds contextual precision about who the request is for.

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 makes the tool's core use clear and gives practical guidance for the dryRun flag, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like answer_permit_question or get_estimate. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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