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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by stating the server never submits anyone's information, clarifying this is a self-serve handoff rather than an action taken on the user's behalf.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the team routing given immediately after. No filler and no redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity, single-enum, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, who each option applies to, and the no-submission 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, but the description goes further by mapping the audience values to concrete outcomes: individual_or_family to Private Wealth, business_owner to Workplace Retirement. That meaning isn't in the enum labels alone.

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+resource — returns booking links and contact details for reaching ClearMind Capital — and is clearly distinct from siblings like get_firm_overview or find_401k_plan. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing context (individuals/families vs. business owners/HR leads) so the agent knows who to fetch options for. It does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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