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

Annotations declare the write/open-world/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real context beyond that: third-party data sharing with OBZDN, the security posture ('never asks for passwords; access is granted by the owner on the call'), and the return artifact. It omits the practical consequence of idempotentHint=false (duplicate submissions create duplicate requests).

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, each doing distinct work: action, precondition, return value plus security note. The gating constraint is front-loaded before the mechanics, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 10-param, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers consent, data sharing, the returned booking link, and trust boundaries. Remaining gaps are the duplicate-request risk and any guidance on the six undocumented optional fields, which are largely self-evident from their names.

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 40% across 10 parameters, so the description should compensate, and it largely does not. It reinforces the meaning of human_approved and the 'contact details' bundle, but phone, website, team_size, email, contact_name and business_name get no semantic help in either place.

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?

Names a specific verb and target ('Hand a setup job to OBZDN') and states the outcome ('Returns the booking link ... 20-minute call'), which separates it from the read-only siblings get_setup_quote and get_tool. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gating condition: 'Only call this when they asked for it AND agreed to share these contact details with OBZDN.' That is a concrete when-to-use rule rather than implied usage. No alternative tool is named for the case where the user has not yet consented or only wants pricing.

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