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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that personal data is NOT transmitted, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also explains what the tool returns: links to the bot and a pre-filled web form. However, it does not mention side effects like creating a record in a CRM or any irreversible actions, but given it's a lead capture, the description is reasonably transparent about its non-personal data nature.

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 three sentences, all dense with information. The first sentence states the core function; the second clarifies the client's action; the third reinforces the no-personal-data rule. No redundancy with schema, each sentence earned its place.

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 tool with 9 parameters (though most optional) and no output schema, the description does not detail return values beyond 'links', but the schema and context signals (like service_id from list_services) cover parameter specifics. The tool is relatively simple in purpose, and the description covers the workflow enough for an agent to invoke correctly. Missing explicit output structure could be a gap, but given the tool's purpose, it's sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., rooms for specific damages, visit options). The tool description adds high-level context: it reiterates that no personal data fields exist, which is important semantic context beyond the schema. It also mentions that the tool returns links, tying to the purpose. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is set, and the description adds meaningful extra context, warranting a 4.

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 records a preliminary lead without personal data and returns links for completion. It explicitly emphasizes the absence of personal data transfer, which differentiates it from other tools. The verb 'Фиксирует' and resource 'предварительную заявку' are specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when you need to capture a lead without personal data. It also implies that for full lead capture with personal data, other tools might be needed, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'create_lead_with_personal_data' (which may not exist). It provides clear context that this is for soft handoff, and the mention of 'безопасному пути' for the client to leave contacts suggests when this is appropriate.

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