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

The description mentions that explicit consent is required and that contact details will be shared with Mirabello Consultancy, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, response time) or any other side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing prerequisites) to improve scanability.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the tool's purpose and consent condition but leaves out details about what happens after booking (e.g., confirmation behavior, expected response). It is adequate for a simple booking but could be more complete.

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 low (17%) with only 'consent' having a description. The description adds little semantic detail for parameters like 'phone' or 'message'; it only mentions 'topic' implicitly by listing example topics. The description does clarify the consent requirement but does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (request a personal consultation), the provider (Mirabello Consultancy), and the specific domain (Swiss relocation & investment-migration). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it handles queries 'beyond the data'.

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 explicitly indicates this tool is for questions beyond what the data tools provide, listing example topics. While it doesn't say when not to use it or name alternatives directly, the context implies it's a human consultation tool, distinct from the data-focused siblings.

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