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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the data leaves the system to a third party and a human responds asynchronously within one business day, which is a response-time expectation the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what the tool itself returns or how the submission is stored.

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, with the action and outcome front-loaded and the consent precondition placed where it will be read before invocation. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 a six-parameter outbound submission tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent precondition, and expected follow-up channel and timing. The only gap is that it doesn't say what the tool returns to the caller on success, though the email-reply framing largely substitutes for that.

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%, so the schema already explains all six fields including the user_confirmed consent flag. The description only reinforces the consent semantics of user_confirmed and loosely maps the inquiry categories to the details field, adding little beyond the structured data — 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?

States a specific verb (send the user's request), the recipient (Bramvia), and the concrete outcome (a Business Central consultant replies by email within one business day), plus the scope of inquiry types. This is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_bramvia_services or find_business_central_partner.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — only call after the user has explicitly agreed to be contacted — and reinforces it with the required user_confirmed: true. It does not, however, name alternative tools for users who only want information (e.g. get_bramvia_services or search_bramvia_knowledge), so the agent must infer that non-consenting users should be routed elsewhere.

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