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

While annotations already mark read-only and non-destructive, the description adds that it 'returns a secure handoff to the simplified IMERGEA form for explicit review and consent.' This is extra behavioral context not present in annotations, providing transparency about what happens (returns a handoff) and what it avoids (submission).

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds value—first sentence defines the tool, second sentence gives usage and a key limitation. Well-structured.

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?

Given an output schema exists)Skip the need to describe return values is reduced. The description covers purpose, target users, usage context, and a key behavioral boundary (no data submission). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't detail all parameter interactions—acceptable given schema coverage.

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 60% (language, profile_summary, linkedin_profile_ready have descriptions; mandate_types and contribution_blocks only have enums). The tool description does not explain what these parameters mean beyond the schema, so it adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema partially covers the meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'assess fit with the IMERGEA partner network and prepare a concise application.' It uses a specific verb (assess/prepare) and resource (partner network), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on partner application rather than transaction readiness or valuation.

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 explicitly says 'Use when someone is improving a CV or LinkedIn profile, exploring advisory work, seeking M&A assignments, or offering transaction expertise.' It also clarifies what it does NOT do ('does not submit personal data or upload a CV'), which helps set boundaries, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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