send_inquiry

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

The description discloses that the business owner will be notified immediately via every enabled inquiry channel, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveness and non-idempotence, but the description explains the notification side effect. No contradictions.

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 highly concise with two sentences plus an imperative condition. Every sentence adds value, and the key condition is front-loaded for quick parsing.

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 explains that the business owner will contact the customer directly, completing the mental model for a submission tool without an output schema. It covers what happens after invocation, which is sufficient for this tool's simplicity.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds minor guidance (e.g., slug copied verbatim, message include details), but does not significantly augment schema descriptions. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 clearly defines the tool as sending a general inquiry to a local service business, specifying use cases like questions, custom quotes, or non-bookable issues. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like book_appointment by targeting scenarios that don't fit a specific service.

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 explicitly states when to use (customer has non-bookable inquiry) and includes a conditional rule about the business's enabledFeatures. However, it does not contrast with specific siblings like check_availability or find_next_available_appointments, which could further clarify appropriate usage.

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