Request a warm introduction to a Compliance Registry firm. target_firm_slug is required (this tool routes leads to listed firms, not to TESSA directly). TESSA logs the lead and forwards a warm intro email to the firm with TESSA Cc'd. No calendar booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prospect_org | No | ||
| project_brief | No | ||
| prospect_name | No | ||
| prospect_email | Yes | ||
| requested_window | No | ||
| target_firm_slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: routing to listed firms, logging the lead, forwarding a warm intro email with TESSA Cc'd, and no calendar booking. It could mention whether the operation is idempotent or any rate limits, but provides solid context for a lead generation tool.
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?
Description is four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds distinct value. No redundant or extraneous words.
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 core functionality and one key parameter but lacks detail on return values (no output schema), synchronization model, or confirmation. For a tool with no output schema and 6 parameters, more completeness is needed.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It only explains target_firm_slug, leaving prospect_email, prospect_name, prospect_org, project_brief, and requested_window unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.
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 the tool requests a warm introduction to a Compliance Registry firm, specifies that target_firm_slug is required, and explains the routing and behavior (logs lead, forwards email with Cc). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on introduction rather than listing or finding firms.
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 implies usage for requesting introductions to listed compliance firms and notes exclusions like 'not to TESSA directly' and 'no calendar booking.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_compliance_firm or request_quote.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.