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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no message is sent without the owner, the owner controls the send, PII must not be passed to this tool, and the referral reward goes only to the verified human ambassador, never to an agent or wallet. It also imposes a disclosure duty on the caller. Nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded with the return value and then layers usage, privacy, referral and disclosure rules in a logical order. It is longer than average, but nearly every sentence carries an operational constraint, so only the referral/reward explanation is slightly redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description still says what comes back: a link that opens a prefilled text to MAX. With both optional parameters fully documented in the schema and the safety profile covered by annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that the referral code credits a specific ambassador, that it defaults to the ?ref= code in the server URL, and by barring owner PII from being supplied at all. The agent_name field's anonymous-count purpose is only documented in the schema, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 first sentence gives a concrete verb and resource: it returns a link the owner can tap to open a prefilled text message to MAX, the data agent. That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (check_data_readiness, explain_data_licensing_term, get_data_rights_checklist, list_public_data_licensing_disclosures), none of which produce an outbound handoff artifact.

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 states an explicit precondition ('Use only when the owner says they want a real review or next step'), anchors it to a sibling tool ('for example after check_data_readiness'), and adds exclusions and handling rules: show the link, never send the owner's PII to this tool, pass a referral code when acting for an ambassador. Both when and when-not are covered.

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