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

Annotations already declare the write, open-world, non-destructive and idempotent profile, so the safety picture is covered. The description contributes two useful behavioral facts beyond that: inquiries are pseudonymous (an anonymity contract the caller likely cares about) and a verified session is required. It does not explain what idempotency means here (whether a repeat call returns the existing inquiry or errors) or what happens to the inquiry afterwards.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Its compactness is a virtue structurally, though it tips into under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

This is a state-mutating tool with no output schema, no annotation detail on outcomes, and 0% parameter documentation. An agent still lacks the return shape (inquiry ID? conversation ID? does it open a conversation?), error behavior for an unverified session or non-returned property, and any guidance on the message payload.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for all three required parameters. It obliquely maps sessionToken ("verified session") and propertyId ("returned property"), but gives no format, provenance or constraint detail, and never mentions the message parameter at all (length bounds, content expectations, or what "pseudonymous" means for message content).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a pseudonymous inquiry") plus a qualifier scoping it to a "returned property," which is materially more informative than the title "Create inquiry." It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools such as send_message or report_message, which could plausibly be reached in a similar flow.

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 phrase "using a verified session" implies a precondition (the caller needs an already-verified session), which is genuine usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like send_message or prepare_contact_exchange, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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