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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose some behavioral outcomes: a confirmation email will be sent and a broker specialist will follow up. It also mentions a 201 response. However, it does not detail side effects, data handling, idempotency, or other important behavioral traits, leaving gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, beginning with 'Submit Intake' and a clear one-sentence summary. The additional 'Responses' section is somewhat redundant but not harmful. Overall, it is appropriately sized and well-structured, though the response section could be trimmed.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It explains the high-level purpose but does not provide enough detail about parameter semantics, prerequisites, or exactly what a successful submission entails. An agent would struggle to correctly populate the fields without additional information.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description offers no parameter-level guidance. It only generically says 'Provide your business details and requirements,' failing to explain what each field (email, needs, tools, budget, etc.) means or how to populate them. This is a severe deficiency for invocation.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a broker intake request to find the right AI agent for your needs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_intake, which retrieves intake data. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you want to submit business details and requirements to be matched with AI agents. It also mentions the follow-up process. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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