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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the consent gate, the identity prerequisite chain (claim_free_key then bind_email, or an OAuth connection), the once-per-terms-version recording semantics, the required accept_terms=true, and that the acceptance lands in DC Hub's lead register with a returned accepted flag and terms version.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the consent gate and trigger come first, exclusions last. Every clause carries information, though the single long paragraph could be split for faster scanning.

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 gated consent-write tool with an output schema and safety annotations already present, all the missing pieces an agent needs are supplied: prerequisites, trigger condition, refusal condition, side effect, and return values.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: accept_terms is framed as an affirmative human-consent switch rather than a generic boolean, and terms_version is tied to what source_capacity reports. The linkage to the prerequisites is useful context the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 ('records that acceptance' of DC Hub's introduction terms) and immediately scopes the effect: it unlocks Capacity Source listing details. It explicitly separates itself from request_capacity_intro and source_capacity, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 the exact trigger ('Call it when source_capacity returns a listing locked with access.reason terms_acceptance_required'), the hard precondition ('Use ONLY after your human has read and agreed'), an explicit prohibition ('never on your own judgement'), and named alternatives for the two adjacent intents.

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