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

The annotations say readOnlyHint=true, and the description backs that up with the critical disclosure that nothing is sent for them and the output is a message plus a link that opens their email app. Because there is no output schema, the description responsibly explains the return value. That is exactly the side-effect information an agent would otherwise be uncertain about for a tool named 'request'.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then interaction guidance, and there is no filler. The final clause 'before calling it' is slightly compressed, and its referent ('it') has to be inferred. The sentence is otherwise tight.

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 7-parameter tool with 5 required fields and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, side-effect boundary, and the gathering protocol. Minor omissions are what the generated request actually contains and whether any authentication is needed; neither is essential for calling it correctly.

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 coverage is 71%, so four of the seven fields (goal, role, email, assets, constraints) are described in the schema. The description adds the collection strategy ('ask for anything missing, one question at a time') and clarifies that the goal is captured 'in their own words,' helping the agent fill in the fields. But the 'name' and 'organisation' fields have no description in either place, so the description does not compensate for that remaining gap.

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 concrete verb phrase ('Turn what someone wants to evaluate ... into a Federated Computing evaluation request'), which pinpoints both the action and the artifact created. The purpose is easy to tell apart from the sibling tools, which are read-only lookups (get_guide, list_runs, explain_term). It stops just short of 5 because it never explicitly names the sibling tools or states the boundary against 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?

The description says to ask for anything missing, one question at a time, before calling it, which is explicit pre-call guidance most tools never give. It also notes the person can use the web form instead, so it acknowledges a manual alternative. A 5 is withheld because it never says when NOT to use the tool (for example, for general questions about Federated Computing).

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