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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it warns the send is irreversible, clarifies that calling twice creates two requests (explaining the non-idempotent behavior in practice), and reassures that company data is not shared or made accessible. This goes past the raw destructive/openWorld flags into what the agent actually needs to know before committing.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then preconditions, then risk/idempotency notes. Every sentence carries weight — the read-back requirement, consent gate, irreversibility, data-scope disclaimer, and duplicate-call warning are all distinct and actionable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers authorization, irreversibility, and duplication risk well. The minor gap is sequencing with siblings — it doesn't say whether estimate_data_value or assessment_checklist should precede this call, leaving the agent to infer the workflow order.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most fields (consent, country enum, systems sub-object, is_authorized). The description only gestures at payload content via 'contact details and the summary numbers' without mapping to the 15 parameters or clarifying what 'summary numbers' covers. Adequate but no added meaning beyond the schema.

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 the owner's contact details and the summary numbers to Sell My Company Data so the team can prepare a real offer') and explicitly scopes what it does NOT do ('does not share or give access to any company data'), which separates it from estimate_data_value and assessment_checklist style 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?

Gives hard preconditions in caps: only after the user explicitly asked for an offer AND contact details were read back and confirmed. It also conditions the consent flag ('Set consent to true only if they agreed to be contacted'), so the agent has explicit gating rules rather than inferred ones.

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