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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the secure form handoff flow, reviewer consent, and constraints on handling personal/confidential data. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the when-to-use trigger, then critical privacy/consent behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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 the tool's privacy-sensitive nature and clear trigger, the description covers when to use it, what to avoid transmitting, and what the handoff result is. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not necessary, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile.

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 75%, and the schema already documents opportunity_summary and authorised_to_refer well. The description reinforces the 'non-confidential' nature of the summary and the referral context, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema for language or mandate_type.

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 a specific verb ('prepare') with a clear resource ('a concise M&A, capital raising or debt opportunity referral to IMERGEA'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like partner_application and recommend_advisory_service by focusing on the referral handoff.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a consultant, founder or advisor mentions a credible transaction opportunity.' It also provides a clear exclusion about not requesting or transmitting sensitive data. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.