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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the request is free, no-obligation, returns a reference ID, and that the team follows up. It also notes estate planning is not FCA-regulated. Minor missing details like potential confirmation email or error handling, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guideline, and return/regulatory note. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple nature of the tool (form submission), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, outcome, and regulatory note. Agent can correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about consent and real details but does not explain parameter meanings beyond schema. Adequate but no added value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Submit a request for a FREE, no-obligation estate-planning consultation', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (calculations, checks) by being the only one for requesting a consultation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use only with the user's explicit consent and real contact details', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or offer alternative tools for similar purposes.

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