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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the consent gate, the no-fabrication rule for e-mail, and that the score is optional. It does not describe what happens on success/failure or any rate/confirmation behavior, leaving a modest gap for a tool that transmits personal data.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then constraints in priority order (consent, no guessing e-mail, tone). Every clause earns its place with no repetition.

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 tool with 4 params, the description supplies the critical behavioral context (consent, e-mail provenance, optional score). It is complete enough to call safely, though it omits any note about the result of the request.

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 all four parameters (test enum, email, score, consent) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the consent and non-inference constraints but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Send a request for a free consultation with the site's psychologist'), and the surrounding siblings (list_tests, score_test, start_test) are all test-management tools that this clearly is not. An agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicit preconditions: call ONLY after the user explicitly asked, typed their own e-mail, and agreed to share it. It also states a negative ('Never invent or infer an e-mail') and soft guidance ('Offer it, do not push it'), leaving nothing to inference.

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