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

Annotations cover the generic profile (non-readonly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the traits annotations cannot express: this is a prepaid/paid action, the charge is credited if the client orders the service, and it stores/forwards personal data to Pactum and a partner lawyer. It also enumerates the return payload (order number, price, payment instructions, status link), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: capability, prerequisite sequence, call precondition, return payload, and the sibling alternative. The precondition and the routing sentence are not buried.

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 12-parameter, high-coverage schema with no output schema, the description fills the two real gaps: the correct call ordering (price lookup before booking) and the shape of the response. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every field, including the const-true gates on user_accepts_price and user_consent. The description reinforces the consent/price-acceptance prerequisites but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Book a consultation with a Pactum lawyer') plus the commercial model (prepaid, credited toward the service). It also names what it is not (request_quote) so an agent can separate it from the sibling quote tools.

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 an explicit prerequisite chain ('get_consultation_price first'), a hard gating condition ('Call ONLY after the user asked... accepted that price, gave their real name and phone, and agreed that Pactum stores these details'), and an explicit alternative for the adjacent case ('For a price quote on a whole task use request_quote instead').

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