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

The emphasized 'This MESSAGES THE CLIENT' discloses the outward-facing side effect beyond the destructiveHint annotation, and 'omit ClientEmail to force SMS' reveals channel-selection behavior that is not in the schema. 'Returns the new intake' also discloses the response despite there being no output schema.

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 client-messaging warning is front-loaded, followed by identification rules, optionality, and the return value in a few tight sentences. 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?

Covers identification, required vs optional fields, side effects, channel behavior, and the return value, which is everything needed to invoke a 7-param tool with no output schema. Missing auth/rate-limit notes are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional logic the schema cannot express: the ClientId vs ClientName+ClientEmail/ClientPhone identification paths and the omission-of-ClientEmail SMS trick. This meaningfully enriches the terse schema field descriptions.

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 (Send) and resource (intake questionnaire) plus the delivery channels (email or SMS). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling intakeq_list_questionnaires, which only lists templates.

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?

Explains the two mutually exclusive ways to identify the client (ClientId, or ClientName plus contact info) and notes PractitionerId is optional. It gives strong in-context guidance but does not state when not to use this tool or name a preferred alternative.

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