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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that data is handed to a third-party firm, that the firm replies by email, that a WhatsApp reference is issued, and that consent must be collected with the privacy notice shown and never set on the user's behalf. This is exactly the operational and legal context the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true) 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?

Front-loads what the tool does and who it contacts, then layers on the consent precondition and the pricing caveat. Dense but nearly every sentence carries a constraint; minor overlap with the schema's consent description.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the trigger, the mandatory consent flow, the reply channel, and the pricing boundary. It leaves minor gaps such as what happens on duplicate submissions or invalid email, but nothing critical to calling 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 coverage is 91%, so nearly every parameter is already documented, including the full consent notice text and the enum for planned_move. The description restates the required trio (name, email, consent) and the consent gating, which mostly duplicates the schema rather than adding new semantics; 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 specific verb and resource: it passes the user's request to the firm's immigration lawyers so they contact the user. It also names the response channel (email reply, optional WhatsApp continuation), which makes it clearly distinct from the assessment and calculator siblings.

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?

"Use it when the user wants to talk to a lawyer or hire help" gives a concrete trigger, and "Do not quote prices: the firm gives them directly" adds an explicit exclusion. It does not name which sibling to prefer instead when the user only wants general requirements or an assessment, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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