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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that details are shared externally with Alphamotion, that explicit user consent is required, and that 'nothing is booked, priced or agreed' — an important side-effect boundary. It still omits what happens after submission (confirmation, response shape, follow-up timing).

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 short sentences: purpose first, consent gate second, non-commitment caveat third. No filler, and the ordering matches the decision sequence an agent would follow.

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?

Covers purpose, consent gating, and the non-binding nature well, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However, for a 7-parameter PII-collecting tool with 43% schema coverage, the missing field-level guidance and the absent link to list_services leave an agent under-informed about what to collect.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate — but it only reinforces user_consented (already documented in the schema) and vaguely references 'these details'. The four undocumented fields (name, email, phone, company) get no guidance, and the service param's relationship to list_services is absent from the 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?

States a specific verb and outcome: 'Ask Alphamotion to get in touch on the user's behalf' — an agent can tell this is a contact/lead-request action, not a listing or recommendation tool. It doesn't explicitly name list_services or recommend_services, so sibling routing is only implied (likely the final step of that flow).

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 a concrete precondition — 'Only use this when the user has agreed to share these details' — which is exactly the gate an agent needs before transmitting PII. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do if consent is absent, so not a full 5.

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