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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds useful context beyond that — free, no API key, records a request, and a consent-gating rule — but doesn't say what happens after submission or whether the caller gets a reference back.

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, zero padding, with the access constraint ('FREE, no API key') front-loaded and the consent rule last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, cost, and the consent gate, which is the crucial operational detail for a 5-required-param mutation with no output schema. However, it leaves fund_summary's expected content and post-call behavior undefined, which an agent would want for correct invocation.

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% across 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines the semantics of 'consent' (only true with explicit email agreement), which is the riskiest field, but says nothing about what fund_summary should contain or expected formats for email/firm.

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: 'Records a fund manager's request to be introduced to DEALITHIC and booked into a demo about raising their fund from LPs.' This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like lp_match_preview or investor_intro_preview, though it doesn't explicitly name the closest alternative request_intro.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call this after the person has explicitly agreed to be contacted by email, and set consent=true only in that case.' This is a strong when-to-use rule. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., request_intro) for adjacent cases, so not a 5.

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