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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the pay-per-use cost and implies the tool only produces a draft, which is useful context; however, it does not state the output format, any required language/hints, or whether the draft is simply returned as text.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action, audience, input, and cost are each communicated in short, scannable clauses. There is no filler or 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?

For a single-input generative tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: an agent is told to pass an original message and receive a draft reply. It omits optional parameters like tone or length, but those are not required for a 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?

The schema's input description is only the Spanish phrase 'mensaje a responder', while the tool description explicitly says 'input=message' and clarifies the message may be from email, chat, or ticket. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema field description.

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's action (draft a reply) and its scope (email, chat, or ticket messages), plus a target user context (support agents). It is more specific than a simple restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like sales-email or rewrite-formal.

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 phrase 'Draft a reply to a message' and 'For support agents' provide a clear context for when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended scenario is easy to infer.

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