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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds the key behavioral fact that the request is submitted by the person, not on their behalf. This prevents an agent from assuming the tool performs the consultation submission itself.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers purpose, output, language handling, and the non-submission caveat. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the title beyond what is necessary.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description names the returned artifacts (form link, consent text) and the critical behavioral caveat. It could mention the link format, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, language, is fully described in the schema with its allowed values, default, and meaning. The description's 'in the user's language' echoes that schema rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 ('returns') and resource (consultation form link + RGPD consent text), and frames the tool's role as connecting the user to a licensed Portuguese real estate agency. This clearly separates it from the sibling tax/rate calculators even without naming them.

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 opening 'How to put the user in touch with a licensed real estate agency in Portugal' gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the purpose statement is enough to route an agent correctly.

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