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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by ruling out misreadings that its name invites: 'this tool sends, stores and books nothing' clarifies that generating a message is not sending one. It adds a privacy constraint ('Do not include names, phone numbers or other personal data') that appears nowhere in structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, then sequencing, then constraints. No filler; each sentence changes how an agent would behave.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. Combined with the sequencing, the no-side-effects statement and the privacy rule, an agent has everything needed to call this after check_shooting_fit and present the result 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% with per-field descriptions and enums for category, channels, deliverable and sourceMaterial, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no field-level syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

Names a precise verb and artifact ('Build a ready-to-send first message to Egor in his four-point brief format') and enumerates the concrete outputs (Telegram deep link, mailto link). An agent can distinguish it from siblings immediately, since the sibling check_shooting_fit is called out as the predecessor.

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?

Explicit sequencing: 'Use after check_shooting_fit' states the prerequisite, and the follow-up instruction to surface the `missing` points before sending gives a concrete post-call action. It also clarifies the division of labor — the user reviews and sends, the tool does not.

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