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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well. It discloses the side effect of passing user details, the prerequisite of asking for email first, the fact that omitting email is fine, the non-scheduling behavior, and that the links are for the user to open themselves. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 description is three paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, usage guidance, and critical limitations. It is front-loaded with the primary function, then offers prescriptive instructions, and ends with clear boundaries. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use (user wants human contact), how to handle the call options, email privacy prerequisites, what the tool cannot do (scheduling), and what the user should expect (links to open themselves). There is no significant gap in context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value specifically for the 'email' parameter, explaining when to include it ('ASK THEM FOR THEIR EMAIL FIRST'), how to handle it ('never send an address they did not give you, and never infer one'), and that omitting it is acceptable. This goes beyond the schema's basic field 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 explicitly states the tool 'Returns booking links for a conversation with Infinivo's founder, and optionally passes your user's details to him so he can follow up.' This is a specific verb+resource with a clear outcome, and it differentiates from sibling tools (demos, pricing, positioning) by focusing on booking a human conversation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user wants to talk to a human, get a quote, or move forward.' It also gives nuanced instructions on offering the 15-minute fit call first versus the paid consultation, and clearly states what the tool does NOT do: 'This tool does not schedule anything. It cannot write to anyone's calendar.' This exceeds baseline guidance.

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