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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so explicitly: no personal data is saved, nothing is sent to partners, no email is sent by this tool, and the returned link expires in 30 days. It also discloses the preselection side effect of naming a partner. Minor gap: no statement about idempotency or what happens on repeated calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return value, then side-effect disclaimers and the optional partner behavior. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs; 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?

Covers the return value (a link), its validity, the side-effect profile, and the optional partner parameter, which is sufficient given no output schema exists. It is slightly thin on the semantics of the non-required qualification fields and on repeat-call behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 description coverage is only 27% (users, language, partner_slug), so the description should compensate more. It does add real meaning for partner_slug (named partner is always shown and preselected), but apps, timeline, situation, employees, languages and ai_assisted_delivery are left to their enum values with no interpretive guidance.

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 concrete verb and resource — saves the buyer's project answers and returns a review link — and clarifies the two-step handoff model (buyer adds contact details and confirms email on the site). An agent can distinguish this from match_partners/search_partners, which discover partners rather than prepare a request.

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 usage context: give the link to the buyer, it is valid for 30 days, and partner_slug is optional. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over match_partners or that search_partners should be called first to obtain a slug (that hint lives only in the schema). Clear context, but no explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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