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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial context of what the write actually does ('records the request for doola's team'), that it 'changes nothing on the customer's account', and that no new tools are returned despite an output schema existing. That is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered trigger → input → side effect → follow-up. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and the invocation condition is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter reporting tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: when to call, what to put in the required field, what the call does to the account, and what to tell the user afterward.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already spells out both `context` (including the PII prohibition) and `llm_model`. The description only restates that the goal and desired tool type go in `context`, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (record a request for a capability that doesn't exist) and explicitly positions it as the fallback when 'none of the other tools can do' what the user wants, which cleanly separates it from every sibling like start_formation or verify_payment.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants something none of the other tools can do') and explicit post-conditions for how to proceed afterward ('tell the user this isn't available here and point them to the doola dashboard'), leaving nothing to inference.

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