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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this action shares data with the Safety Over Silence team, that consent is mandatory, and that the agent must verbally confirm before calling; this is the key behavioral trait for a privacy-sensitive submission.

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?

Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: primary action, consent gate, silent-call prohibition with exact prompt, and minimum-field requirement. It is front-loaded and contains 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?

For a 6-parameter submission action with no output schema, the description plus schema fully cover inputs and the privacy-critical call conditions. It does not describe the success/return behavior, but that is not necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only that 'first name and email' are required, which duplicates the schema's required list; it does not add new meaning to score, top_gaps, phone, or score_band.

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 names the specific action ('Submits the parent's contact information and assessment results'), defines the outcome ('receive follow-up support'), and clearly differentiates this from sibling tools that get/start/run assessment steps by being the only submission/lead-capture operation.

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 explicitly conditions usage on consent: 'ONLY call this if the user explicitly consents' and prohibits silent invocation with 'Never call silently.' It also supplies the exact confirmation prompt and required minimum fields, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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