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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: routing is workspace-internal, uses the Free Internal Escalation Bus, and incurs zero external credit cost. It does not detail idempotency behavior or side effects, but the schema covers the idempotency key requirement.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no wasted wording. The trailing cost detail is relevant and earns its place.

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 write tool with six fully documented parameters, annotations covering safety hints, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly. It omits success/error behavior and deeper idempotency explanation, but those are largely covered by the schema.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the purpose statement, which is acceptable when the schema fully documents each parameter.

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 states a specific action (route or escalate an inbound message) with clear scope: internal bus, another @botmail.work inbox in the same workspace, and zero external credit cost. This differentiates it from external-send siblings like send_message without needing to name them.

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 a clear context for use: internal escalation within the workspace with no external credit cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the internal-only/cost framing provides strong implied usage guidance.

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