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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the record is interest-only and no link or agreement happens in the conversation. It stops short of saying what happens after submission, whether contact_email triggers outreach, or how duplicates are handled.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and followed by compact exclusions and the consent rule. Every sentence carries information, though the phrase 'before sessions near it' is slightly indirect about what 'near' means.

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 five-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and a clear non-destructive annotation profile, the description covers trigger, exclusions, and consent semantics well. The main remaining gap is post-submission behavior, such as whether the business is contacted and what the caller should tell the user afterward.

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%, with each of the five fields (tap, suburb, country, business, contact_email) documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the business must be named and local to the sessions and that the tap token reflects an adult conversation, but it adds no field-level syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 concrete trigger and resource: an adult reporting that a named local business wants a short spoken sponsor line before nearby sessions, and it clarifies that the tool 'records interest only'. That is more specific than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_sponsor_info or account_link, so differentiation rests on the 'not for' exclusions rather than a named alternative.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition (an adult naming a local business that wants a sponsor line near it) and a detailed when-not list: not medical questions, emergencies, crisis, general meditation chat, or personal listening. It also states the follow-up rule that the business agrees on its own link rather than in chat, which bounds what the agent should do next.

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