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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds value beyond these by disclosing the downstream effect ('the team calls or texts the customer back') and the human-confirmation gate. It does not warn about duplicate submissions or what happens if the same request is sent twice, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct load: purpose, workflow, outcome, and exclusion. The purpose is front-loaded and the emergency exclusion is clearly separated at the end.

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 10-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the submit does and what happens next. The only missing piece is what the caller receives as a result (no output schema exists to cover it), so a full 5 is not warranted.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds procedural meaning to the required customer_confirmed gate ('Collect the details, show them to the customer, and call this only after the customer confirms'), which the schema alone cannot express as a workflow.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a quote / service request to Lord Mechanical LTD for a customer') and identifies the recipient business by name. This clearly separates it from the read-only siblings (get_business_info, list_services), which only describe and never submit.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('call this only after the customer confirms'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for emergencies'), and names the alternative action ('tell the customer to phone (604) 670-3737 directly'). The when/when-not/alternative triad is fully present.

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