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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool emails a signing link to the owner's email, never returns the link, and that the owner must review, sign, and pay $29 before filing. It also discloses the 24-hour token validity, providing important operational context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences, each adding essential information: the main purpose, the workflow and non-return of the link, and the token requirement. No redundancy or filler, and the most critical action is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the prerequisite (qualifying check), the token validity, the owner's role and fee, and the fact that the link is not returned. The only missing piece is explicit error handling, but the prerequisite conditions imply failure modes, making this sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: it clarifies that ownerEmail receives the signing link, and that continueToken is tied to a qualifying check and valid for 24 hours. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which only state origin, not the validity window or email role.

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 clearly states the action ('Start a county filing') and the specific prerequisite ('for a property that qualified in check_property_tax_savings'). It also distinguishes this from siblings by referencing the prior check tool and implying this is the initiation step, unlike get_filing_status which would monitor progress.

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 explicitly ties usage to a prior qualifying step: 'Requires the continueToken from a qualifying check (valid 24 hours).' This implies the tool is used after check_property_tax_savings and provides a time constraint. It does not explicitly compare to get_filing_status, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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