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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses authentication requirements, the staged draft workflow, the required verbatim consent display, and that data is not automatically shared because no partners are connected yet. It also clarifies that nothing is saved until confirm_action, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true rather than contradictory.

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 dense but front-loaded with the critical 'requires login' and 'step 1 of 2' context. Every sentence carries operational value: consent handling, persistence rules, sharing behavior, and email sourcing are all stated without 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?

For a 10-parameter consent workflow with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral workflow well and mentions the return values. However, it does not explain most input parameters or the anskaffning enum values, leaving an agent without enough schema-side support for correct invocation.

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 20%, so the description needs to compensate for many undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for partnerTyp and touches samtycke/partnerIds, but leaves bil, namn, bilId, postort, telefon, meddelande, and anskaffning essentially unexplained.

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 and resource: it creates a draft offer request and returns consent text plus a confirmation ID. It also scopes the partner types explicitly and excludes insurance and loans, and it identifies confirm_action as the next step, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 clear usage context: this is step 1 of 2, requires login, and must be followed by confirm_action after explicit user consent. It also excludes insurance and loan partner types. It does not broadly compare against all sibling tools, but the relevant alternative/next step is named.

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