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

destructiveHint=true is already declared, and the description adds meaningful context: it messages the client, the delivery channel is chosen by omitting ClientEmail to force SMS, and the call returns the new intake. It stops short of stating irreversibility or rate/permission constraints.

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 tight sentences, side-effect warning front-loaded immediately after the purpose, no filler. The endpoint reference is a small extra but harmless.

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?

With no output schema, the 'Returns the new intake' note covers the return adequately, and channel selection is explained. For a 7-parameter messaging tool, some delivery failure or idempotency behavior is still unaddressed.

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 real semantics beyond the schema: 'omit ClientEmail to force SMS' and the ClientId-vs-ClientName identification rule. It does not explain QuestionnaireId sourcing beyond what the schema already notes.

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 ('Send an intake questionnaire to a client') and immediately flags the externally visible effect ('This MESSAGES THE CLIENT'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like intakeq_list_questionnaires or intakeq_get_intake.

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?

Gives the alternative identification paths (ClientId, or ClientName plus ClientEmail/ClientPhone) and notes PractitionerId is optional. It does not state when to prefer ClientId over name-based lookup, but the routing conditions are otherwise explicit.

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