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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: it declares the call is free, warns against including confidential details, explains what the response contains, and states the 'legal information only, not legal advice' caveat. It omits any statement about rate limits, authentication, or what happens on an out-of-scope or invalid request.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the cost signal ('Free.') front-loaded and the return contract clearly enumerated. No filler, and the workflow instruction is placed after the return description where it is actionable.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, outputs, cost, and the confidentiality constraint. Gaps are minor: no failure-mode or out-of-scope behavior is described.

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 50% and the description compensates for the undocumented 'request' parameter by specifying length guidance ('a sentence or two') and a safety constraint ('no confidential details'). The parenthetical about service_id adds marginal value beyond the enum's own schema description, which already explains the quoting behavior.

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 states a specific action (describe a need, get an in-scope verdict) and enumerates concrete returns: in-scope status, matching service, fixed fee, and service_id. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like request_engagement, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

It implies workflow ordering with 'Share the fee with your human before requesting an engagement,' which signals this is a pre-engagement step. But it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name sibling tools such as feature_check or conflict_check that an agent might confuse it with.

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