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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful side effects – stored in Firestore, ops-notified, exportable by the operator. However it omits auth requirements, duplicate/idempotency handling, validation rules, and failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a compact param list. The parenthetical list is slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with six params at 0% schema coverage, the description is only partially sufficient – it names the params and side effects but lacks validation, dedup, and outcome details an agent would need.

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%, so the description must compensate; it enumerates all six params and flags product_id and ref_tag as optional and clarifies agent_id as 'your agent identity'. It does not give format or meaning for email/message/ref_tag, leaving real gaps.

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+resource ('Submit a qualified shopper lead into the CUBBY HOUSE pipeline') with scoping detail. It is clearly distinct from siblings like dome_search_products or dome_match_profile, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 word 'qualified' hints at a gate but never defines it, and there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance or any routing to/away from sibling tools. Usage must be inferred.

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