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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the exact returned status values, that email_sent is false, and the explicit negative guarantees (no commercial lead, email, entitlement or payment). The instruction 'Never describe this as a real submission' is a behavioral guardrail absent from structured fields.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the core behavior is stated first, followed by the synthetic-data constraint and the misrepresentation warning. Every sentence earns its place and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 13-parameter nested tool with full schema coverage, an annotations-declared safety profile and an output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: what it returns, that nothing is emitted, and that data must be synthetic. Minor gap: it doesn't mention how validation failures surface, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 100%, so the schema already carries all parameter documentation and baseline is 3. The description adds only the meta-signal that the body mirrors request_adviser_contact; it contributes no additional per-parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource ('validates the request and returns a preview with status validated_test and email_sent false') and explicitly ties itself to the sibling request_adviser_contact by saying it uses 'the same body.' An agent can immediately tell this is the dry-run variant rather than the real submission tool.

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 gives a clear use condition ('Harmless integration test') and a hard constraint ('Use synthetic contact details only'), which implicitly routes real submissions to request_adviser_contact. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly with a when-to-use rule, but the context is unambiguous.

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