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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it never accepts or transmits contact details, never creates a CRM lead or quote reference, demands buyer-side form submission for lead creation, and states it is not a reservation with no pricing/availability guarantee. No contradiction with 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct compliance or edge-case fact. The description is dense but justified for a PII-sensitive tool; the final sentence packs a privacy instruction that partially restates sentence two's contact-detail boundary, and mixes two unrelated directives, costing a point.

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?

Given the rich output schema (return shape need not be explained), the description is complete for its complexity tier: preconditions, exact side-effect boundary, buyer's required action, non-guarantees, and two edge cases (continuation URL without plan_id, expired plans). It fully supports correct agent invocation for a compliance-sensitive flow.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value for plan_id by reinforcing the non-PII constraint, tying it to specific producing tools, and adding lifecycle semantics ('re-run an expired plan') plus the explicit instruction to never collect contact details for the call. The three optional attribution params are left to the schema, which already describes them adequately.

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+resource: it 'returns a prefilled TempGuru-owned review form' for a saved non-PII plan_id, and explicitly contrasts with what it does not do (never creates a CRM lead or quote reference). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote_status (status checking) and plan_staffing/save_staffing_plan (plan production).

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?

Provides an explicit precondition ('Use only after the buyer reviews a staffing plan and asks to proceed'), required input provenance (plan_id from plan_staffing or save_staffing_plan), and explicit when-not branches: give continuation.form_url directly when no plan_id exists, and re-run an expired plan. Concrete alternative actions are given for the key edge cases.

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