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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explicitly says no account, subscription, phone number, or charge is created, which resolves the real risk of a mutation tool that is non-destructive but still has external effects. It also discloses the return values (tracking reference and a one-time status_token), which the 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the outcome and the explicit non-effects. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Covers the outcome and side-effect story, and though there is no output schema, it names the return values. However, for a 12-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any parameter guidance leaves a material hole an agent would have to fill by inference.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. Only consent ('with its owner's consent') maps to a field; plan_code, idempotency_key, expected_monthly_minutes, timezone, industry, and website are never explained, leaving the agent to guess at their semantics.

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 and resource: prepare an onboarding request for a US business wanting VoiceDesk AI. It is clearly distinguishable from the demo-oriented siblings (create_demo_request/get_demo_status) by framing this as a pre-signup lead, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implies the use context well: the owner must consent, VoiceDesk reviews and sends a signup link, and the owner picks and pays for a plan themselves. That tells the agent this is a pre-sales handoff, not provisioning. It stops short of explicit when-not or named-alternative guidance against the sibling tools.

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