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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the tool is a live system (not canned), returns the actual reply plus a structured case record, and clarifies the firm is fictional while the desk is real. It also discloses the demo_key_required condition, adding transparency about session behavior.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: the action, the return value, the live/canned distinction, and the usage trigger. No redundancy or 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?

For a demo tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, role, live behavior, return value, and the demo_key edge case. It doesn't specify the exact output record structure, but that is not essential for correct invocation and is likely discoverable from the response.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds role-play guidance ('YOU play the role of someone who has just been injured') that informs how to construct the message parameter, going beyond the schema's generic 'realistic and unstructured' advice.

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 and resource: 'Start a live text conversation with a real AI front desk, configured for a personal-injury firm.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'live text conversation' (vs email demo) and the role-play aspect. The return value is also stated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it when a user wants to see what Infinivo actually does rather than read about it.' It also provides the role-play setup and the demo_key flow for subsequent sessions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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