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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool does NOT do (never returns the URL, never records a handoff), what it requires (receipt and attestation), what it accepts (controlled constraints only), and the cost implications. It also links to the exact consent wording. This is thorough and transparent for a tool with no 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 description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: what it does, what it doesn't do, and its requirements/cost. There is no repetition or filler. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, constraints, side effects, and consent wording. However, it does not describe the return value or response format, which could be relevant for an agent invoking the tool. Given that there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned would improve completeness, but the description still provides sufficient context for safe and 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 already documents most parameters (67% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that only controlled constraints are allowed and explicitly lists prohibited fields (name, email, contact details, etc.), which is not obvious from the schema. It also ties 'search_id' to a discovery receipt and 'offer_id' to a provider-funded offer, reinforcing the tool's purpose. This adds value beyond the structured schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a signed action ticket for a separately disclosed provider-funded offer returned beside a receipt-bearing NHS discovery result.' This immediately identifies the tool's unique function, and the explicit statement that it 'never returns the provider action URL or records a handoff' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'handoff_provider_action'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it requires a discovery receipt and explicit attestation, and it states that it does not perform a handoff. This implicitly guides the agent to use a different tool when a handoff is needed, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. It also notes cost implications, which helps the agent decide whether to invoke this tool.

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