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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior: it echoes the full brief, never performs arithmetic itself, includes the AI-channel figure, and conditionally states whether the free-sessions concession applies for company deals. 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?

Two dense, purposeful sentences. The key trigger is front-loaded ('call after every change'), and each clause adds distinct information without redundancy.

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 no output schema and 10 parameters, the description still explains the return behavior (echoed brief with price), pricing rule, company-deal condition, and the follow-up action. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 60% schema description coverage, the description adds aggregate meaning by mapping parameters to 'audience, role, motivation, focus areas, definition of success, chosen package.' However, it does not clarify all parameters such as visibility, leaders_count, or context, leaving the schema to carry some burden.

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 behavior: compose/echo the structured mentoring brief with authoritative pricing. It clearly differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as 'the accumulator' called after every change, versus tools like send_mentoring_offer or get_mentoring_options.

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?

Explicitly says 'call after every change' and instructs when to transition to send_mentoring_offer ('when they explicitly agree on the price'). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the stated trigger and downstream action provide clear contextual guidance.

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