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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's value-add is the gating behavior: userConfirmed must reflect explicit human approval, dryRun submits nothing, and $10M+ revenue triggers a booking link. It does not restate idempotency or the openWorld implication, leaving a little annotation-covered ground unaddressed.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then the confirmation protocol, then the validation mode and outcome. No filler, no repetition of schema text.

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 need no explanation. The description covers the mutation semantics, the confirmation gate, the dry-run escape hatch, and the qualifying threshold — everything an agent needs to call this correctly without further context.

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 3 is the baseline. The description goes beyond it by explaining why userConfirmed exists (only after the person approves the exact email, job title and revenue band shown to them) and by revealing the consequence of annualRevenueBand — the $10M threshold that determines qualification. That is real meaning the enum alone does not convey.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (adds to waitlist) and resource (Private SuperIntelligence waitlist), and frames it in terms of the agent's own task ('the person you are helping'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like book_private_call or assess_ai_exposure without opening any 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 gives concrete preconditions (show exact email/job title/revenue band, get a yes, then set userConfirmed=true) and a validation mode (dryRun). What's missing is explicit routing against the adjacent sibling book_private_call — the 'qualified registrations receive a link to book a conversation' line implies the relationship but never names the alternative tool.

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