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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the side effect ('Registers'), the requirement of consent, the follow-up behavior, and the response type ('neutral acknowledgment'). It does not detail potential duplicates or exact acknowledgment contents, but for a simple submission tool this is adequately transparent.

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 three short sentences (about 30 words) with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what it does, what is required, and what happens next. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, required inputs, consent requirement, follow-up, and the response. Optional parameter details are fully handled by the schema. It could be more explicit about how this complements or differs from sibling tools, but the description is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only a small emphasis on name/email and consent, which is largely redundant with schema descriptions. It does not need to explain optional parameters further.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Registers a prospective buyer's interest with the Ocean Builders sales team.' This clearly identifies the tool as a submission action, distinct from the read-only sibling tools like search_inventory and get_unit_details. It also summarizes prerequisites and the follow-up, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is used when a buyer wants to express interest and gives consent to be contacted, with the sales team following up by email. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., 'for pricing questions, use get_pricing_and_deposit_policy'). This is clear context with no exclusions.

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