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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: the action shares the user's name and contact details with third parties, requires explicit consent, and forbids including health information in the message. It does not state whether the enquiry is reversible, how quickly it is dispatched, or any rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then guardrails, with zero filler. The consent gate and the health-information prohibition are stated as direct instructions that an agent can act on.

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 six-parameter mutation/communication tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the critical gaps: consent, third-party data sharing, and message content restrictions. It omits the 'care' parameter's meaning and any indication of the result of a successful send, but the description is otherwise sufficient to invoke it safely.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does for several parameters: userConsent is tied to the explicit consent condition, homeIds is implicitly bounded to 1–3, and message is constrained to exclude health data; contact purpose (shared with homes) is also clarified. The 'care' parameter is never explained, leaving one of six parameters opaque.

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 ('Send the user's enquiry about a place') plus the recipient scope (1–3 nursing homes) and the effect (homes contact the user). This is clearly distinguishable from the read-only siblings (search_homes, get_home, compare_homes, list_cities), which all retrieve rather than dispatch.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use gate: 'ONLY call this when the user has explicitly asked for it and agreed that their name and contact details are shared', with the matching condition for setting userConsent=true. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., search_homes for browsing before enquiring), so it falls short of the 5 level.

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