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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the owner receives a notification with contact details, that no auth is required, and that contact info is required for follow-up. This gives enough operational transparency for the agent to anticipate side effects. It could add what happens on failure, but core behavior is clear.

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. The main intent and trigger are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second gives behavior and prerequisite signal. Every clause contributes directly to correct invocation.

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?

The definition is structurally adequate for a simple notification-capture tool: it identifies when to call it, what happens, and the required data. It could enrich the picture by mentioning how publicSlug maps to the target project or noting optional conversationId linking to clearly_ask_project, but the siblings are implied by schema and naming. Given no output schema and reasonable annotation support, that edge is not fatal.

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 60%, which is moderate. The description adds meaningful guidance about the contact object (email/phone required) beyond the schema, but it does not clarify publicSlug's purpose or which fields of contact are actually needed beyond the requirement. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Tell') and resource ('Clearly project owner'), and explains exactly when to invoke it: when the visitor signals real intent (meeting, demo, pricing, tour, purchase). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like clearly_ask_project by narrowing the trigger to lead-capture behavior rather than generic questions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the visitor signals real intent'. It also notes prerequisites (visitor email/phone required) and that no auth is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use for general inquiries', so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative rubric.

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