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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that a person reviews every request and that the user receives one confirmation email. That adds meaningful workflow context, though it does not mention timing, rejection handling, or what happens if fewer than 5 agencies respond.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the critical usage constraint and workflow behavior. No filler.

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?

The description covers the action, gating condition, human review, and confirmation email, which is useful for a mutation tool with no output schema. However, with 7 parameters and very low schema coverage, it leaves too much parameter meaning unspecified to be fully complete.

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 14%, so the description should compensate, but it only clarifies that name and email are user-supplied and that agency_slugs is capped at 5. It says nothing about the required brief or the optional budget, company, and timeline fields, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 action (request an introduction) and resource (up to 5 agencies via Cofounderbase). It is clearly distinct from the sibling retrieval tools such as search_agencies and get_agency, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

It gives an explicit gating condition: only call when the user explicitly asks for an introduction and supplies their own name and email. It does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but the prerequisite is clear.

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