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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it's a legacy flow with no email/calendar side effects and no booking guarantee. This is important since annotations only indicate write semantics (readOnlyHint false). It doesn't contradict annotations, but it leaves out what happens on success (e.g., response or storage), so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is immediately informative and front-loaded with the core action ('Submit a consultation request preview'). Every phrase earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is rather sparse. It clarifies what the tool does not do, but not what it actually does (e.g., whether it saves the request, returns an ID, or shows a preview). It's minimally viable but leaves gaps about the expected result and the meaning of 'preview'.

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 43%, which is low, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not; it mentions no parameters at all. The schema itself has descriptions for only 3 of 7 params, leaving others ambiguous. Thus, the tool description adds no value in this dimension.

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 clearly states the tool submits a 'consultation request preview,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it's a legacy flow that doesn't guarantee booking, making it clear this is not the main booking tool.

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 implies when to use this tool (for preview submissions) by noting it doesn't send email, create calendar events, or guarantee a booking. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide direct when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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