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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that paid checkout happens externally on imergea.com only after human review and consent, and reiterates that this tool never books or takes payment. This explains the external process and reinforces the read-only nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core action and options; the second provides the constraint and external process. No redundant words, and the key routing behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple routing tool with an enum parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and the external payment flow. There is no missing information an agent would need to correctly invoke it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that required_outcome maps to either a FREE tool ('free_indicative_valuation') or a PAID package (the other enum values), and by introducing the distinction between free and paid. This gives the agent a richer understanding of the enum semantics than the schema alone.

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 'Route' and identifies the resource: a user to the FREE indicative valuation tool or the appropriate PAID advisory package. It enumerates the paid package types, which aligns with the required_outcome enum and distinguishes this tool from siblings like imergea_list_advisory_services (which lists services) and imergea_get_advisory_booking_link (which handles booking). The purpose 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?

The description clearly states the tool routes users based on their required outcome, and it explicitly declares what the tool does NOT do ('never books or takes payment'), which serves as negative guidance. It does not name alternative tools for booking or listing, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this router versus a booking or listing tool.

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