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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: no PII is transmitted and the person completes details on-site, which rules out side effects an agent might otherwise fear. It also discloses that Spanish affects labels only while legal disclosures remain English, a behavior not visible in 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the action enum in prose, then the scoping caveat and language note. No filler and no repetition of the schema verbatim.

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 7-parameter, 100%-documented read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a link), the three action targets, the optional prefill, the no-PII boundary, and the language behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what language=es actually changes in the output (Spanish labels such as 'solicitar', 'siguiente paso', with English legal text retained). The prefill mentions (purpose, home value, balance, county) largely restate schema descriptions, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (returns a link) and resource (next-step deep link on capcenter.com), then enumerates the three action targets. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_mortgage_quote or get_todays_rates, which compute values rather than hand off to a hosted flow.

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?

Implies the usage context — this is a handoff/link generator rather than a calculator — and 'Links only; personal details are entered by the person on capcenter.com' signals when it applies. But it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as get_mortgage_quote or book_consultation, so the agent must infer routing.

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