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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, so the bar is lower; the description still adds material context they cannot convey: third-party data sharing with an installer partner, a possible referral fee, and the consent gate. It also notes the success signal ('Returns ok true when sent'), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 earning its place: purpose and recipient first, the consent precondition second, the return signal last. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 9-parameter, 7-required write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, gate, data-sharing implications, and success signal adequately. It omits what happens on failure or after submission (contact timing, error responses), which would round it out.

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 100% and two enums are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the consent requirement already stated in consent_to_share's schema description and does not add format, validation, or default guidance beyond it.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Sends the user's site details') and identifies the recipient (UK Charging Solutions), making the write/submission nature unmistakable versus the informational siblings (area_charging_facts, charger_size, host_income_estimate). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling 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?

It gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call this when the user asked to be contacted and agreed to share these details.' That is clear when-to-use guidance with a hard gate, though it does not name alternatives or spell out when-not to call beyond the consent condition.

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