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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: it collects and sends nothing, and the user enters their own details on openfinancial.ca — clarifying there is no data submission or privacy risk. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned contact details, but that is minor for a static-link tool.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: what is returned comes first, then the no-data-collection caveat. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return value (link plus contact details) and the handoff mechanics, so an agent has everything needed to call it and set expectations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 and resource — returns the intake-form link and contact details for Open Financial. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling analysis tools (analyze_mortgage_scenario, estimate_home_equity, etc.), which compute things rather than hand off to a human professional.

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 trigger: use it when the user asks for help from a broker or licensed mortgage professional. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the trigger is narrow enough that no ambiguity remains.

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