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

The description clearly discloses that the tool does not save or submit anything, and that persistence only happens after the user follows the link and signs up or signs in to save a private draft. It also warns against including personal or account information. This substantially complements the readOnlyHint annotation and contradicts nothing.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: what action is performed, when to use it, what data to include, and what happens afterward. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource 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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the deliverable, the triggering user intent, data provenance rules, non-persistence, and privacy. It stops short of documenting nested structures or the exact form of the returned link, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the information provided.

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 schema description coverage at only 7%, the description adds an important governing rule: include only facts the user supplied, and never put guessed values or calculated loan limits into requestedLoanAmount. However, it does not explain nested objects like address or assumptions, nor clarify units beyond what the sparse schema descriptions already provide.

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 a specific deliverable ('a Move this deal to Relendi link') and ties it to the user's CRE scenario. Phrases like 'keep a deal, continue in Relendi, or carry property details beyond a calculator' clearly distinguish this from the analysis/computation-focused sibling tools.

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 states when to use the tool: when the user wants to keep a deal, continue in Relendi, or carry property details beyond a calculator. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the given context is sufficient to route an agent appropriately.

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