submit_contact

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context such as encryption and a tracking reference ID, but it does not clarify side effects, confirmation behavior, or how the tracking reference is returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and object while including the recipient and added value of tracking. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary filler.

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 low-complexity contact submission tool, the description captures purpose, recipient, encryption, and tracking reference ID. It does not explicitly explain the response format or confirmation behavior, which prevents a perfect score, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no field-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since each parameter is already documented.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Dispatch,' and clearly identifies the resource: an engineering inquiry or consultation request sent to Zain Ahmed with a tracking reference ID. This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinct from the read-only sibling tools like get_skills and search_knowledge_base.

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 clearly states the intended use case: sending an engineering inquiry or consultation request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent toward this tool for contact/submission tasks.

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