start_filing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the signing link is never returned to the caller and that a flat $29 fee applies, which are important side-effects. It does not mention potential errors or auth, but for a simple mutation it is adequately transparent.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and prerequisites, then key output behavior, then cost. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: action, prerequisites, outcome (link emailed, not returned), and cost. It does not mention error handling or what the caller receives as a response, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that continueToken comes from a qualifying check, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, ownerName, ownerPhone, and ownerEmail are only listed without formats or constraints, providing minimal additional semantics.

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 clearly states the action (start a filing) and the target resource (a qualifying property). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the initiation step, whereas check_property_tax_savings evaluates eligibility and get_filing_status retrieves status.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (continueToken from a qualifying check) and describes the workflow (link emailed to owner, payment). It implies the use case (after a qualifying check) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is clear.

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