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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: submitting a confirmation-gated lead, dispatching an email, and returning status='estimate_only' when PII is absent. It also reveals the auth header requirement, making all material behavioral traits explicit.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose ('Composite tool. Always computes an estimate.') and efficiently cover conditional behavior, side effects, and a needed header. No redundant wording; every clause contributes.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers conditional paths, side effects, return status, and a required header. It references a sibling tool to fully specify behavior when PII is absent, making the tool's operation clear even without an output schema.

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 high (71%), but the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: owner_email triggers the write path and requires X-Agent-Attribution, and case_factors is defined by reference to estimate_procedure_cost. This provides semantic context not present in the schema, though not every parameter is elaborated.

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 clearly states the tool computes an estimate and, when owner_email is present, additionally submits a lead and sends a confirmation email. It distinguishes itself from the sibling estimate_procedure_cost by noting identical behavior when PII is absent, making the tool's dual-mode 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?

It explicitly contrasts behavior with estimate_procedure_cost ('behaves identically' without PII) and identifies the condition (owner_email present) that triggers the lead-capture path. It also specifies the prerequisite X-Agent-Attribution header, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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