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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the full human-in-the-loop flow: returns a humanCheckUrl, the user must complete a browser check, then a short-lived code is emailed. It adds operational guardrails ('Do not open the link yourself') and a scope boundary ('never submits a lead'), none of which are in annotations. This matches readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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 dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the required user flow and ends with an explicit exclusion. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately names the key return value (humanCheckUrl) and lays out the full external interaction expected of the agent and user. Minor gaps remain, such as idempotencyKey semantics and the exact response format, but the critical call flow and sibling disambiguation are covered.

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 0%, and the description never mentions parameter names. It only indirectly implies that email is used for sending the code and that confirmed reflects user consent, while idempotencyKey is entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'start authorization for their own inquiry.' It also explicitly scopes the tool as an 'authorization bootstrap' and adds the boundary 'never submits a lead,' which differentiates it from sibling tools prepare_inquiry and submit_inquiry. An agent can tell when this tool applies.

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 gives a clear precondition ('After the user agrees') and a detailed interaction procedure, including 'Do not open the link yourself' and asking the user to paste the emailed code. It differentiates from submit_inquiry via 'never submits a lead,' though it does not explicitly name siblings or state when to prefer prepare_inquiry.

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