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

No meaningful behavioral hints are provided by the annotations (all false), so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose that the output is 'preparation notes' labeled as a 'Protocol guide', which clarifies the artifact produced. However, it does not disclose whether anything is persisted, submitted, or whether the tool merely returns draft text, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, names the relevant form families, states the input precondition, and gives the output framing—all in one concise statement.

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?

The tool has a nested intake object and an output schema, so the description does not need to restate return values or full field semantics. The main gap is that 'Protocol guide' and 'professional-review questions' are somewhat specialized jargon that is not expanded, but the core selection context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 100%, and each intake property has an example, so the schema already explains the parameters well. The tool description adds the connection between the form family list and the drafting scope, but it does not add deeper meaning about how to populate intake or interpret formFamily. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Draft preparation notes' for TRS, IHT100, IHT400, and related professional-review questions. It also specifies the input context ('from a completed intake') and output framing ('Protocol guide for solicitor execution'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like generate_review_bundle or prepare_portal_fill, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from a completed intake' implies that this tool should be used after intake has been completed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as generate_review_bundle or prepare_portal_fill. No exclusions or alternative names are given, so the usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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