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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral constraints: the confirmation token must be 5 seconds to 30 minutes old, changed details are refused, outdated consent versions are refused, and the agent must not set consent=true on its own. These are material operational details that directly affect correct invocation.

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?

It is front-loaded with the usage condition and negative case, then the required parameter behavior, then refusal conditions. Every sentence contributes necessary guidance with 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?

Given the high parameter count, the existence of an output schema, and the sensitive consent workflow, the description covers the essential prerequisites, token lifetime, consent handling, and refusal cases. Return values need not be described because an output schema exists.

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 meaningful semantics for the key submission parameters: pass the same details, the token, `consent=true`, and `consent_text_version`, and never fabricate consent. It does not document every one of the 22 parameters, but the schema already covers them.

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 action: sending a prepared request to flatin.pt after prior consent. It clearly distinguishes this submission step from the sibling `request_consultation` preparation step, so an agent can identify its purpose without inspecting the schema.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: after the person has read the summary and consent text from `request_consultation` mode=prepare and explicitly agreed. It also explicitly says when not to use it and names the prerequisite tool, leaving no ambiguity about sequencing.

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