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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: a human reviews the brief, a reply comes within one working day, and client contact info is mandatory. It omits what the caller receives back (no confirmation or reference number is mentioned), whether resubmission duplicates work, and any rate or size constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the turnaround expectation, then the one hard requirement. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

A 10-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: what the returned confirmation looks like, how the free-form fields (what, needs, references) should be shaped, and how this differs from the adjacent request_call tool. The current text covers the turnaround and contact requirement but not the bulk of the 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?

Only 2 of 10 parameters have schema descriptions, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It reinforces 'contact' ('Include a way to reach the client') and gestures at 'on_behalf_of' ('on behalf of a client'), but leaves name, what, when, needs, where, budget, company, and references with no meaning added anywhere.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Send a project brief to the studio') plus the actor ('on behalf of a client'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like request_call or talk_to_the_studio. It never explicitly names those alternatives, but the action itself is specific.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over the clearly related siblings (request_call, talk_to_the_studio, estimate_budget), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose implies a scenario, but the agent must infer selection criteria entirely.

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