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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that TESSA logs the lead, notifies specific email addresses for TESSA leads, forwards a warm intro email to the firm with TESSA Cc'd for directory leads, and explicitly states no calendar booking occurs. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and routing without annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by routing behavior and an exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant fluff. It is concise, well-structured, and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, routing, and an alternative tool, which is solid for a request tool. However, it lacks detail on return values (no output schema) and does not clarify all parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent. Overall, it is complete enough for the task but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It only explains target_firm_slug ('to any directory firm if you pass target_firm_slug'), leaving prospect_email, prospect_name, prospect_org, project_brief, and requested_window to be inferred from their names. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, though the one explained parameter is valuable.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Request an informational introduction — to TESSA itself, or to any directory firm.' It explicitly contrasts with request_strategy_session by stating 'No calendar booking,' distinguishing it from a sibling tool. The scope (TESSA vs. directory firms via target_firm_slug) is precisely defined.

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 provides an explicit exclusion and alternative: 'No calendar booking — use request_strategy_session to book a meeting with TESSA.' It also clarifies the two lead types (TESSA vs. directory) and how each is handled. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this for X,' the purpose and alternative are clear enough for proper tool selection.

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