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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a critical behavioral fact: the request 'reaches a human' and must only be made with explicit consent and real contact details, which implies real communication will occur. It does not detail the follow-up process or delivery channel, but the most important behavioral expectations are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the exact purpose and scope of the audit, while the second adds the consent requirement and the human-delivery behavior. Both sentences earn their place.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the consent condition, and the fact that the request triggers human contact, which is sufficient for invocation. It does not explain the audit's delivery format or how it differs from submit_contact_request, but these are not essential for correct calling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a generic reference to 'real contact details,' which aligns with the email/phone fields but does not enrich the meaning of bottleneck, website, or other parameters beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Request' with the resource 'IG Digital Lab's free audit' and defines what the audit covers ('a short review... visibility in AI answer engines'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_company_info, get_service_areas, and list_services, which are read-oriented, and from submit_contact_request, which likely handles general inquiries.

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?

The description provides a clear usage condition: call only with the person's explicit consent and real contact details. It also signals that this action reaches a human, so an agent should treat it as a real-world, consent-gated operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with submit_contact_request or state when to prefer one over the other, stopping short of a 5.

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