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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it discloses statefulness (pass all answers so far, omit on first call), a branch rule (cash or savings skips credit and income), the termination handoff, and UI presentation constraints. It stops short of describing validation behavior for malformed answers or what happens if answers are re-sent out of order, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then sequenced into imperative instructions with no filler; nearly every sentence changes agent behavior. Minor deduction because 'step' is referenced as if it were a known return field without ever being defined, which makes one sentence slightly opaque on first read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics, and it partially does by mentioning the returned question, its options, and a 'step' value. It does not enumerate the possible step values or the full response shape, leaving the agent to infer the terminal condition from a single example ('contact'), but the flow is otherwise complete for a multi-turn wizard.

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% and the nested answers object is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by establishing that answers are cumulative across calls and that the branch rule determines which of the six fields actually appear, which a field-by-field schema cannot convey.

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 concrete verb and resource: it returns the 'Next question for a free consult application,' which immediately disambiguates it from the sibling apply_for_free_consult (the submission step). It also clarifies that the tool is a stateful step in a sequence, so an agent knows exactly what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit invocation rules are given: call it immediately after each answer, ask only the returned question using only its options, and stop. It names the alternative and the handoff condition ('When step is contact... then call apply_for_free_consult') and states an exclusion ('Do not search or call other tools between questions'), covering when, when-not, and what comes next.

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