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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns one next question plus relevant public guides and cases, and it clarifies that readiness is scoped to HTR review rather than final approval. It does not describe behavior on partial or invalid input, but the added return semantics are meaningful.

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 with zero waste: the core action is front-loaded, the return behavior follows, and the readiness caveat closes. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, enums, and no output schema or schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It explains the high-level purpose and return shape, but an agent still has no guidance on the inquiry structure, the nested product-specific objects, or how required versus optional fields behave, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 0% across 12 parameters, including three nested objects, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameter meaning. It only vaguely alludes to 'product-specific missing and ambiguous fields,' which hints that nested panel/knitting/component fields exist but gives no semantics for any parameter, enum, or required product_id.

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: checking an HTR inquiry for product-specific missing and ambiguous fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling prepare_inquiry, leaving an agent to infer the boundary between preparing and validating an inquiry.

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?

Usage is implied by the validation framing and the caveat that 'readiness only means ready for HTR review,' which tells an agent this is a pre-review completeness check. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative prepare_inquiry tool.

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