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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (reaches a human), the delivery channel and latency (email within two business days), and a consent requirement. It omits what happens after submission or whether the request can be retracted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the offer and its definition, then the consent constraint and the human-reach warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 form-style submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, side effect, and the key consent gating. Return behavior is left implicit, but that is a minor gap given the tool's nature.

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 seven fields including the email-or-phone rule. The description only adds the 'real contact details' emphasis, which adds marginal meaning over the structured 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?

States a specific verb (Request) and resource (free audit), then elaborates what the audit actually is: a written review of manual processes emailed within two business days. This is far beyond a restated title and gives an agent a concrete mental model of the offer.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition (only with the person's explicit consent and real contact details) and context (it reaches a human). It stops short of naming the sibling offer, e.g. routing general inquiries to submit_contact_request, so no explicit alternative is given.

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