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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description goes further by disclosing 'write-only, single insert, side-effecting', persistence details, auth requirements ('Bearer <token> (Firebase ID token)'), residency constraint ('UK/EU residency'), and the confirmation warning about creating a 'sales-visible record'. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is longer than ideal but well-organized with labeled sections (WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, BEHAVIOR). It front-loads the core purpose and uses clear signposting. However, there is some redundancy (e.g., 'Authenticated' at the beginning and 'Auth: Bearer <token>' later), so it is not maximally 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 description covers purpose, scope, when to use (with exclusions), behavioral traits, authentication, residency, confirmation requirement, and response contents. Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, and it provides a complete operational picture for an agent.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the engagement scopes for the 'reason' parameter (workflow sprint, proof-of-concept, pilot support, advisory) with brief explanations, and clarifies that the request is made 'on behalf of the caller' and returns a ticket id + scope. This is meaningful but not extensive, as the schema already lists the scopes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'submit an agency engagement enquiry on behalf of the caller for a founder-led discovery call.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (handoffs.partnership, handoffs.operator) in the WHEN NOT TO CALL section, and by describing the exact engagement scopes.

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?

The description provides explicit WHEN TO CALL and WHEN NOT TO CALL sections, including specific conditions ('user has identified a paid hands-on expert engagement need... explicitly asks to talk to the team'), a mandatory confirmation step, and named alternatives for other use cases. This is exemplary guidance for an AI agent.

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