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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the human-approval gate, dry-run preview semantics, and the downstream outcome for qualified registrations. It stops short of describing what happens if submission fails or how duplicates interact with idempotency, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the workflow order is front-loaded (who to add → what to confirm → validation → qualification outcome). Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers the confirmation prerequisite, the dry-run escape hatch, and the qualified-registration consequence, which is everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters (baseline 3). The description still adds meaning for two of them: dryRun as 'validate without submitting' and userConfirmed as 'true only after the person approved these exact details', tightening the semantics beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('Adds the person you are helping to the Private SuperIntelligence waitlist'), which cleanly separates it from the get_*/read_* siblings. An agent can identify the action and target without opening 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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('show them the exact email, job title and revenue band... get their yes; then set userConfirmed to true') and a validation path (dryRun=true). It also names the consequence that selects the qualified path ($10M+ revenue gets a booking link), so when and how to call are fully specified.

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