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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds material traits beyond that: dedup semantics on (smb_id, phone or email), the storage destination and the fact that the business is NOT notified, per-call cost with the 'not charged while no payment rail' caveat, async result retrieval via get_outcome, and beta status. No contradiction with the annotations.

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, followed by tight bracketed metadata (cost, async routing, beta). Every clause carries information; the bracketed tags are slightly cryptic but dense rather than padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, where data lands, who is notified, cost, and that the result is retrieved asynchronously via get_outcome. The consent_record_id requirement for downstream send_message is handled in the schema. Minor gaps remain around error/validation failure behavior, but nothing critical to calling 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 50%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: the dedup key '(smb_id, phone or email)' gives real meaning to smb_id and the prospect's contact fields that the schema does not. It does not elaborate on source or idempotency_key (the latter is documented in the schema), so it adds value without fully closing 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 ('Structured intake of a prospect into an SMB's funnel') plus the dedup key and validation behavior, and explicitly disambiguates the destination ('AgentBroker's own lead funnel, NOT the business's CRM'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like handle_inbound or send_message without opening a 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?

The description establishes the operating context clearly: it's AgentBroker's funnel, not the business's CRM, and the business is not notified. The '[async→get_outcome]' tag routes the agent to the follow-up tool, and the pricing note sets expectations. It stops short of naming explicit when-not-to-use conditions against siblings (e.g., when to prefer handle_inbound), so it's clear context without exclusions.

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