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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context the annotations cannot: the tool returns a prepared link, nothing is created until the user approves, and the returned `url` must be presented verbatim. The nonprofit clarification is genuine behavioral context about how `profit: never` is interpreted by the system. This exceeds what structured fields convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the 'nothing is created yet' caveat, which is good. However, the middle sentence about public support pages is lengthy and feels like promotional framing rather than operational guidance; it could be trimmed. The instruction to pass the URL verbatim is valuable, but the sentence order buries it after the nonprofit tangent.

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 no output schema and 8 parameters, the description does the heavy lifting: it defines the return value (a link), explains the lifecycle (prepared → user approves → created), warns against URL tampering, and disambiguates the nonprofit case. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without opening the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description reinforces the `profit` enum semantics ('never' means selling is not the goal) and explains the public support page concept — which is parameter-adjacent context a first-time caller might miss. It doesn't add syntax or format detail beyond schema, keeping it at 4.

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 action (prepare a form, return a pre-filled link) plus the key semantic correction that nothing is actually created yet. The term 'rikma' is defined inline and the distinction from any real creation is immediate. An agent can tell this apart from prepareSignup / prepareMission / startProcessTool siblings.

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?

Clearly signals when to use: when a user wants to prepare a Partnership form. It also clarifies the nonprofit case ('A public-benefit or nonprofit initiative is a normal Partnership'). But it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g. when the Partnership already exists — that's getProjectDetailsTool territory).

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