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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, non-destructive, idempotent local read. The description earns credit by disclosing the concrete behavior an agent cannot infer: it returns a mailto URL addressed to a specific recipient, and that nothing is sent or stored server-side. The data-handling warning adds further operational 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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: output, side-effect profile, and a hard data constraint. The most decision-relevant fact (what it returns) is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return value, confirms no persistence or transmission occurs, and sets a privacy boundary on the inputs. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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 already high at 83%, and the schema itself clarifies that contact_name refers to the organisation's handler, not the requester. The description reinforces this by warning against passing the requester's personal data or the letter, which meaningfully constrains what belongs in the fields.

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 action and its concrete output: it returns a prefilled email (mailto URL) for starting free scoping. An agent can tell what it gets back without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby dsar_quote or dsar_service_info siblings.

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 clear context ("start free scoping") plus an explicit exclusion: "Do not pass the requester's personal data or the request letter." No alternative tool is named for the case where the agent needs a quote or a template, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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