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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the asynchronous nature (message id + poll URL returned, answer comes later), states it is free with no payment, and indicates the declare fields are optional. It does not mention side effects, retention, or authentication, but covers the most important behavioral traits for a contact tool.

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 dense sentence carries the action, the optional feature, the free/payment reassurance, and the follow-up routing. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 description includes enough for an agent to send a message, understand the async workflow, and know how to poll for the answer. The return values are mentioned, which is useful even though an output schema exists. It lacks deeper explanation of declare semantics (e.g., expected format of skills/endpoint), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the declare parameters (what_i_do, endpoint, skills map to declares_what_i_do, declares_endpoint, declares_skills) but does not explain sender, subject, body, or reply_to. The required fields are somewhat self-explanatory by name, but the description only partially compensates for the zero-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('Kairos'), and clarifies the optional 'DECLARE yourself' feature. It distinguishes itself from the sibling poll_contact_kairos by explicitly naming it as the follow-up for retrieving the answer, so an agent can tell write from poll without opening schemas.

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 implicitly frames the usage: use this tool to send a message, then use poll_contact_kairos or GET /contact/{id} for the response. It provides clear workflow context but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it with other contact mechanisms.

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