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

The description discloses the consequential side effect of sharing the email with Seamgrin, adding context beyond the annotations. readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description usefully strengthens that with the consent condition and paid-opportunity context.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the operational constraint stated immediately after. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter registration tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description plus annotations cover the purpose, consent requirement, and side effect. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and safely.

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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the consent meaning of confirmed and the constraint on email. The description adds only the Seamgrin context, so it does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: submitting an experienced tailor's email for paid alteration opportunities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_tailor_opportunities and from apply_for_tailor_training.

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 a clear gating condition: call only after the user explicitly confirms their email may be sent to Seamgrin. This is strong context, though it does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives or describe when not to use it beyond the consent requirement.

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