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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so that burden is covered. The description adds that the operation yields a contact disclosure and a short-lived signed binding, which gives some behavioral context, but it does not explain how the binding is delivered, what 'short-lived' means, or any authentication implications.

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 a single sentence with no filler, so it is compact, but the cryptic phrasing—'exact contact disclosure' and 'short-lived signed binding'—makes it dense rather than clearly front-loaded. For a tool with five parameters and nested objects, this is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

The tool has five parameters, a nested customer object, no output schema, and no meaningful per-parameter descriptions, yet the description only gestures at two output artifacts. An agent cannot reliably know what inputs to provide, what the tool returns, or how the signed binding is meant to be used.

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 0% and the description names none of the five parameters. Nothing explains rooftop_slug, unit_identity, customer, channels, comments, or the critical rule that customer.email requires channels to include email and customer.phone requires channels to include phone.

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 names a specific verb and resource—prepare a dealership's contact disclosure and signed binding—but those artifacts are not defined, and the tool is not distinguished from lead_submit or other siblings. The title adds 'Ask the dealership to reach out,' but that framing is not carried into the description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus lead_submit or any other sibling. The sibling name lead_submit suggests a prepare-then-submit workflow, but the description never states that this is the pre-submission preparation step, leaving an agent to infer the intended placement.

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