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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining it uses a configured AI assistant (which explains the openWorld trait) and disclosing the prose output format. It does not cover failure modes or latency, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 three sentences, each adding unique value: the core operation, the sibling differentiation, and a hard prerequisite. The main action is front-loaded with 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 core operation, output structure, alternative tool, and availability prerequisite. The main omission is clarifying how 'in context' is populated given that the schema only accepts 'ask', but this is a minor gap for a one-parameter tool with no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the sole 'ask' parameter. It does clarify that the parameter is 'one appointment ask from a sales call' and contrasts it with check_appointment_ask, but it does not explicitly state the expected format, source, or how 'in context' is supplied, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 verb ('review') with a precise resource ('one appointment ask from a sales call') and enumerates the output components. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'check_appointment_ask', so an agent can tell the tools apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives direct selection criteria: 'Choose this for phrasing and coaching; use check_appointment_ask for deterministic six-part scoring and a fixed template example.' It also states the precondition that the tool is 'Available only when an assistant provider is configured.'

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