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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it clarifies that nothing is priced, stored, or sent, and explains the reviewer-mode treatment for test email domains. These specifics confirm and enrich the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile declared in 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 front-loaded with its core purpose and packs a lot of useful detail into a single paragraph. Some sentences are long and semicolon-heavy, but each sentence carries relevant information for an agent deciding whether to use this preparatory tool.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and input parameters, the description does a thorough job covering scope, required request details, read-only behavior, and reviewer mode. It claims to provide every field and accepted value but does not enumerate them here, which is acceptable for a description but leaves minor room to be more self-contained.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does describe required request fields (full street address components) for the target request, but these are not parameters of this tool itself, so the baseline remains appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool provides the requirements for an Instant Term Sheet request, including fields, scope, and expected return. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling request_instant_term_sheet by framing itself as the pre-request information source, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 a clear when-to-use signal: 'before you make one,' directing the agent to consult this tool before submitting a request. It does not explicitly name or exclude the sibling submission tool, but the context makes the relationship obvious.

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