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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the consent precondition and the return behavior ('Returns a reference only'), which matters because no output schema exists. It still omits any note on duplicate submissions, retries, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the return-value caveat closes it out. Nothing is redundant or 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 an 8-parameter, 4-required submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the consent precondition, and the return shape. It leaves out what happens after submission (follow-up, storage, error handling), which is minor but not fully covered.

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 88%, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description only echoes the consent field and adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond it — baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Sends a consultation or property enquiry to the platform's consultants' — which is concrete and actionable. It is implicitly distinct from all read-only siblings (search, get_property, calculate_mprp_cost), but it never explicitly differentiates itself or routes the agent, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'On behalf of a user who has given explicit consent' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternatives are named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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