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

Beyond the annotations (write, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses that the waitlist is free and non-binding, that oqda contacts the person personally, and that the person decides afterward. It also corroborates idempotency explicitly ('Calling again with the same e-mail has no further effect'), adding context the annotations only imply.

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?

The purpose and the strongest constraint (consent gate) are front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct rule or piece of behavioral context. It is dense but contains no filler; a small readability cost is the only deduction.

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 4-parameter write tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: consent wording, invocation preconditions, and idempotency behavior. Nothing an agent must know to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it supplies the exact German consent statement that consent_confirmed must confirm and warns against inventing the email. That goes beyond the schema, which only points back at the description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Puts a person on the oqda waitlist') and immediately scopes it as free and non-binding. No sibling tool does anything similar, so the agent can distinguish it without inspecting any 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?

It states explicit preconditions: only call when the person asked for it, only with their own e-mail, and only after they explicitly agreed to the given consent statement. It also adds a negative constraint ('Never guess or invent an e-mail address'), which is a clear when-not rule.

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