Request a consultation from Refined Element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful non-obvious traits: a human ('Mike') reads every request personally, and priority is free with no payment. It does not disclose what happens after submission (confirmation behavior), whether data is stored/shared, or any rate limits — notable gaps for a mutation tool that transmits contact data to a third party.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the passage is a tight four-sentence block with no filler. There is mild redundancy — 'priority is free, no payment required' restates the schema description — but overall it is efficient and readable.

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 5-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs and recipient well but omits return/confirmation behavior and error semantics. An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect back, which is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it tells the agent what to put in 'message' (what you're building, your Kentico version, timeline) and clarifies that priority=true flags urgency at no cost. This enriches the highest-value field beyond the schema's generic 'include enough context'.

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 and resource ('Send a consultation request') and identifies the recipient (Mike Rahel at Refined Element), then scopes it to three concrete domains: Kentico upgrades, AI-driven development, and GEO work. An agent can immediately tell this is a write/send action, distinct from every read-only sibling (get_article, list_articles, etc.).

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 subject-matter scoping ('for Xperience by Kentico upgrades, AI-driven development, or agent-first (GEO) work') makes the intended use context clear. However, it never says when NOT to use it or points to an alternative (e.g., search_refined_element_knowledge for a quick answer instead of contacting a human), so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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