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

Annotations already mark this readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the form itself files the request with the person's consent — clarifying that this tool opens a surface rather than submitting data. It stops short of stating what the tool actually returns (e.g. a URL) or any auth requirements, though an output schema exists.

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 short sentences: what it opens, who calls it, and where the identifier comes from. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the single parameter is fully documented, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. What is missing is an explicit contrast with the sibling request_consultation, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines business_id including its source and example format. The description's 'pass the office business_id from the business feed' largely restates this, adding only the 'one office' scoping nuance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Opens the firm's consultation request form for one office,' and the clause 'The form itself files the request' implicitly separates it from the sibling request_consultation, which presumably files directly. The sibling distinction is inferred rather than named outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Used by hosts that show a Get Quote button' gives a situational context, and the pointer to source business_id from the business feed helps invocation. However, no alternative is named (notably request_consultation) and there are no when-not conditions, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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