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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: the request goes to a third-party human, it never constitutes consent to calls/texts, and Mike emails to confirm first. It omits the non-idempotency that the annotation flags (repeated calls likely create duplicate requests).

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 sentences, purpose first, then the permission gate, then the consent clarification. No filler; each sentence changes how an agent would behave.

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 the consent/permission flow an agent most needs. The only real gap is the semantics of the optional location parameters (island enum, neighborhood).

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 only 40%, so "email", "question", and "first_name" get description-level framing (where Mike writes to confirm; what they want to know) while "island" and "neighborhood" are left entirely to the schema. Adequate but it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 sends the person's question to a named, credentialed human agent. That is clearly distinct from the informational siblings (estimate_range, flood_zone, island_market, etc.), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Only call this when the person asked you to" is an explicit, permission-gated when-to-use rule with a clear when-not implication. It stops short of naming alternatives, but the constraint is unusually strong and specific.

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