request_expert_intro

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful process context — a concierge coordinates the introduction and next steps arrive by email (implying an asynchronous, out-of-band response) — but says nothing about auth requirements, response latency, or what the immediate call returns.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use when' trigger, and the parenthetical scenarios map directly to the usage condition. Slightly dense with stacked qualifiers, but nothing is redundant or filler.

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 5-parameter request tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: who coordinates the intro and how the requester hears back (email). What is missing is the immediate return value of the call and whether the request can be duplicated, but the async nature is adequately conveyed.

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%, so every parameter (including expert_id's name-or-ID format and message's purpose) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or routing guidance beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (requesting an advisory introduction/consultation) and scopes it to On-Request Human Agents or domain specialists. It distinguishes itself from instant-calendar booking, though it never names the closely related siblings consult_human_agent or consult_analyst, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

The opening 'Use when...' clause gives clear triggering conditions (1-on-1 advisory, strategic projects, no instant booking link), which is more than implied usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude or compare against the sibling consultation tools, so an agent must still infer which of consult_analyst/consult_human_agent/request_expert_intro applies.

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