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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool records high-intent contact interest (a side effect) and that it does not deliver the message, only returns contact info. This is a significant behavioral disclosure, though it does not mention any persistence details or what happens to the recorded interest.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return, and the non-forwarding caveat is clearly stated. No filler or redundant 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 explains the return and the non-forwarding behavior but omits details about how to construct the request (category/slug semantics, message formatting, optional parameters). With 7 parameters and no output schema, an agent needs more guidance to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (client_id and event_date have descriptions), and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. The required category and slug are not elaborated, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving an agent uncertain about what values to provide.

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 states the tool records high-intent contact interest and returns the listing's public email plus a prepared wedding inquiry. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_nc_wedding_vendor, search_nc_wedding_directory) which retrieve directory data, while this one handles contact requests.

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 explains that NC Wedding Guide does not forward or deliver the message, so the agent must use the returned email or mailto URL. This is a clear when-not-to-use instruction, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, leaving some inference about when to choose this tool over them.

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