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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses what is shared and with whom, that user authorization and privacy/contact consent are required, and that no order/reservation/charge occurs. It also explains how to retry idempotently via request_id reuse, adding real operational context.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: what it sends, what it shares, requirements, negative guarantees, and retry semantics.

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 one-parameter submission tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and rich annotations, the description covers cost, side effects, consent prerequisites, and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although reported schema description coverage is 0%, the description conveys the nature of the payload: contact details plus research details, plus authorization and consent flags, plus request_id reuse semantics. This compensates well for the nested Brief object, though it doesn't enumerate individual fields like preferred_timing or product_url.

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 names a specific verb and resource: sending a free feasibility inquiry (research brief) to an operator for follow-up. It does not explicitly contrast with its siblings (estimate_research_cost, get_service_offer), so an agent must infer the routing, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 clarifies that this is a FREE feasibility inquiry and explicitly rules out order creation, participant reservation, and charging, which helps an agent understand the tool's scope. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling tools (e.g., calling estimate_research_cost first), leaving usage implied rather than directed.

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