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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses critical behavior: nothing is ever sent, the default is a no-op preview, HighLevel writes require an explicit confirm, and business contacts are sourced only from the business's own site/listing. This is exactly the side-effect context the false/destructive-false annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and the never-sends guarantee are front-loaded, and the mode-specific behavior follows in a compact block. It is dense but each sentence carries information; it is appropriately sized for a multi-mode mutation tool rather than padded.

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 5-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers side effects, confirmation gating, and mode outputs well. Minor gaps remain around what the audit page itself contains and any idempotency/rate caveats, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what each handoff enum value returns/produces ('text' pastes into CRM, 'highlevel' adds a note to the sub-account, 'csv' returns a download link) and ties location_id to the highlevel path. That is value beyond the bare enum in 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 gives specific verbs and artifacts: publishes a shareable audit page and writes two emails plus a phone opener, and clearly scopes it to prospects from find_prospects. It is not tautological and an agent can tell what it produces. It never explicitly contrasts itself with near siblings like audit_prospect or create_prospect_report, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied via the workflow ('For prospects from find_prospects') and the hand-off modes are described, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative tool. The agent must infer when this is the right step versus other prospect/report tools.

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