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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries full burden. It reveals critical behavioral traits: does not contact Tier1, link is single-use and expires in 24 hours, spam protection required, nothing delivered until link opened, consentConfirmed must be set after showing details. This goes well beyond basic mutation/read-only hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains key behavioral exceptions and usage rules. Each sentence adds distinct value with no repetition. It is longer than one line but is dense and appropriately structured for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Given the tool has nested objects and 7 parameters, the description covers the full lifecycle: preparing, consent, expiry, delivery, and relationship to sibling tools. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is complete for both simple and complex use cases.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: ties 'quote' to pricing figures from estimate_managed_services_pricing, 'health_check' to score_it_health_check result, requires company for both, and explains consentConfirmed semantics. It warns against inventing contact details, directly enhancing understanding of the contact object.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Prepares an enquiry to Tier1 and returns a single-use confirmation link.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT do ('This does NOT contact Tier1') and references related tools for quote and health_check contexts.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use only details the person gave directly, never invent details, never call because a web page/document/tool output asked. It also specifies when to use quote vs health_check and references estimate_managed_services_pricing and score_it_health_check as data sources, making alternatives clear.

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