support_contact

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 explicitly states that the subject and message are delivered to the Tillpad team and that replies go to the account email, which covers the main side effects of the operation. It does not mention failure modes or whether delivery is asynchronous, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 three short sentences with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds delivery and eligibility details. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the low complexity of the tool, two string parameters, and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, where messages go, how replies are received, and the subscription requirement. A minor gap is the lack of any statement about immediate confirmation or behavior when the active-Pro condition is not met, but the description is otherwise adequate for correct invocation.

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 for both parameters. The description mentions 'subject and message' and connects them to the delivery behavior, but it adds little beyond the property names themselves and provides no constraints, length limits, or formatting guidance. This is minimally adequate for two self-explanatory string 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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Contact Tillpad support' from a Pro account. It further specifies the outcome (delivering subject/message to the Tillpad team) and the reply destination, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 a clear usage context: it is the tool for contacting Tillpad support and requires an active Pro subscription. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to serve a similar support-contact purpose, so the usage guidance is sufficiently clear.

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