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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: 'It never sends contact automatically,' which reassures the agent no irreversible external action occurs. However, it omits permissions, persistence, rate limits, and what state (if any) is created, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The non-send caveat is placed second, which is reasonable. It is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It names output artifacts (request, correlation id, deadline, response schema) but never explains the inputs or how the request is scoped, leaving clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the four parameters (limit, query, buyer_limit, supplier_limit). The agent must guess the meaning and filtering semantics of each, and the description does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 ('Prepare') and a concrete resource: the supplier-facing eligibility evidence request, correlation id, deadline, and response schema. The purpose is clear, but the description does not distinguish it from the near-identical sibling prepare_supplier_eligibility_request, leaving ambiguity about which one to call.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no guidance on how this differs from prepare_supplier_eligibility_request or when to follow up with the intake_* siblings. The only implied usage is that it's a preparation step preceding outreach.

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