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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the answer is delivered asynchronously to the client via the provided contacts, and that an API key is required. It does not contradict annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or exact delivery mechanics.

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 compact and front-loaded: action first, then scope, prerequisite, and outcome. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 human-mediated question-submission tool with an output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential context: purpose, topics, required key, and contact-delivery behavior. It does not specify which contact channels are supported or expected response time, but those are secondary given the output schema and simple request semantics.

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 must compensate. It tells the agent that api_key is required and that name/email/phone are the contacts to fill in, which adds meaningful guidance beyond raw parameter names. However, it does not explain each parameter individually, and there is a mismatch: the description says 'Требуется API-ключ' while the schema lists api_key as optional.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Задать вопрос менеджеру завода') and enumerates concrete use cases: non-standard configuration, special conditions, deadlines, leasing. This makes the tool clearly distinct from automated siblings like get_faq or search_machines.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('нестандартная комплектация, спецусловия, сроки, лизинг') and states a prerequisite ('Требуется API-ключ'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as pointing standard questions to get_faq.

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