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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description nonetheless adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: 'Nothing is submitted' clarifies that generating the link has no side effect, and it describes the handoff (buyer supplies name, company, email themselves).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and outcome, followed by the no-submission clarification and the privacy constraint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what is produced (a pre-filled brief link plus WhatsApp/email alternatives) and that no submission occurs. Combined with 83% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already explains brief, target_market, order_value_band and language. The description only echoes one schema rule ('Never include personal details in the arguments'), and does not explain semantics of primary_need or how order_value_band affects commission. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact: turn a buyer requirement into a pre-filled brief link for the Linkora Source form, with WhatsApp and email alternatives. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like estimate_fees, get_pricing or list_services.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('When a buyer wants a quotation'), which tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set is functionally unrelated so the risk of misrouting is low.

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