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

Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating disallowed actions (booking, payment, messaging, transaction start) and clarifying that it is a lookup-and-return handoff rather than an intake step.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition and then the return contract. Dense but every clause carries a constraint; slightly long but no filler that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema and full enum documentation, the description covers trigger, return, and prohibitions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 the single enum parameter fully documents each topic-to-consultant mapping, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Its only contribution is 'one of the supported topics', which merely points at the enum — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (the relevant licensed MAK consultant and contact destination), and the gating phrase 'only when the user explicitly asks how to contact MAK or requests a human professional-review handoff' makes it clearly distinct from the ledger/sources 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?

Explicit when-to-use (user asks for contact or a human handoff), plus an enumerated when-not list (do not collect case facts, assess eligibility, book, pay, send messages, start a transaction). There is no inference required.

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