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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds the concrete side effect (an email is dispatched to contactEmail), a per-founder rate-like constraint ('one per conversation with a given founder'), and the dev-only devCode. It does not spell out failure/rejection behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the side effect, then organized into bold-labeled When/Before/Returns/Next blocks. The length is justified by a multi-step, multi-tool workflow rather than padding.

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?

Covers prerequisites, the return value (applicationId) needed downstream, and the next tool (verify_email). With an output schema present the description needn't explain return shape, yet it still surfaces the fields that drive subsequent calls.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that payload must be assembled from source material and that contactEmail must be the founder's real address, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Create a new pitch application draft') and an immediate side effect ('send a 6-digit verification code to contactEmail'). It names the sibling tools it interacts with (get_application_schema, verify_email), so an agent can place it in the flow without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explicit 'When' clause (complete payload, one per conversation per founder) plus a four-step prerequisite list including 'don't fabricate — leave gaps and ask' and 'show the assembled payload for review'. It distinguishes the path from sibling read tools and tells the agent exactly what must precede the call.

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