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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the workflow (user must open and send), the constraint of leaving out personal details, and the retry behavior (creates another draft, not another lead). It also clarifies that no lead is submitted, providing rich behavioral context that the annotations only hint at (non-readonly, non-idempotent).

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding essential constraints. Each sentence adds value—purpose, exclusions, user-action requirement, agent prohibitions, and retry semantics—without any fluff.

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 description covers all operational aspects an agent needs: when to use, what to prepare, what to avoid, the user's required action, and retry behavior. It omits only trivial details like link format, which are not necessary for correct invocation. Annotations already cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the tool description provides minimal guidance on the parameters. It indirectly explains 'message' (a short inquiry, with constraints) but does not explain 'need' or 'audience', leaving their meaning to inference from the enum values. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated by defining each parameter, but it does not.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('a short inquiry and return a private Valor review link'), and distinguishes itself from informational siblings by focusing on contact preparation. It immediately clarifies what the tool does and what it does not do (submit a lead), leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 description explicitly specifies the trigger condition ('After the user asks to contact Valor') and provides clear directives on what the agent should not do (open or submit the link, include personal information). It lacks explicit reference to alternative tools, but the conditions for use are clear enough to guide selection without confusion.

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