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

The description simply restates the tool's name and offers no additional behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects like persisting a session, generating a URL, or requiring specific permissions, and the annotations (all false) provide no useful signal. With no annotation support, the description carries full burden but fails to add value.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, but its brevity undermines usefulness. For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, one sentence is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness.

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?

The description provides almost no context for a complex tool. It does not explain what a 'hosted' session entails, what the return value is, how to construct the prefill object, or any constraints around the parameters. Combined with missing output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the tool is far from adequately specified.

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?

The description is silent on all eight parameters, and the schema's own description coverage is only 13% (just prefill). The required case_type_id and key options like ttl_hours, return_url, and external IDs are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints.

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 identifies a specific action (create) and a resource (a hosted Klarefi intake session), but it does not explain what that session actually is or how it differs from related tools like open_intake or submit_intake. The phrase 'Klarefi intake session' is jargon without context, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor are any prerequisites or preconditions mentioned. An agent is left without context on whether this is the right tool for starting a new intake flow or whether other tools such as save_intake_draft or submit_intake are more appropriate.

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