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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses the approval flow (answer is auto accept/decline, brief/map are scope-reviewed by SNTL), that a fixed-price quote follows acceptance, delivery windows of 7/14 days from payment, that nothing is owed until payment, that the request is stored, and that contact/personal data must be excluded. For a non-idempotent submission this is exactly the missing context an agent needs.

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 purpose and the return-to-check_research_status instruction are front-loaded, which is good, but the body is one long run-on sentence with parenthetical pricing and dates that is hard to parse. Pricing tiers and delivery windows earn their place, yet the packaging is denser than it needs to be.

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 10-parameter tool with a nested budget object, a conditional companyName requirement and no output schema, the description covers the workflow end to end: submission, accept/decline, quote, payment, delivery, receipt, privacy. The main gap is that it never describes the immediate return value (an identifier or receipt object) that check_research_status presumably needs, though 'keep the receipt' hints at it.

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%, so a 3 is the floor. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema for the 'product' enum by attaching price and scope to each value (answer €12.50, brief €250 two-to-five pages, map €999) and noting the acceptance rule per product. It does not explain subjectType, outputFormat, topics, maximumAgeDays or budget semantics, which remain schema-only.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Ask SNTL one research question about a space company or market, and choose the product.' It also enumerates the three products (answer/brief/map) with their scope and price, so an agent can tell it is a request-submission tool rather than a status or offer-response tool. It stops short of naming the siblings it is distinct from, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 instructs the agent to submit exactly one question, tells it to pick a product, and explicitly routes the follow-up step ('Keep the receipt and return with check_research_status'), which points at a sibling tool. It does not state when to use respond_to_research_offer or check_coverage instead, so there is clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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