Ask about the managed service

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

Annotations already declare the write/mutating profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds the outcome (team contacts them) but never says a request record is created, what happens to it, or why a mere inquiry is flagged destructive. It also omits the idempotency contract that only appears in the requestId schema text.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with "Use this when", with no filler. The colon-and-comma construction is slightly tangled but every clause carries signal.

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 7-parameter, 6-required submission tool with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, the description does not say what the caller gets back, how long the team takes, or which fields drive the request. The destructiveHint=true annotation is left unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an inquiry tool.

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?

With only 57% schema description coverage, the description needed to carry meaning for the undocumented parameters, but it mentions none of them (goal, duration, additionalInfo, projectUrl, budget). Worse, it frames the request as link building while the goal enum also accepts branding, reputation, and ai_visibility, and it says nothing about the EUR-only / 500 EUR minimum constraint documented in 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?

The description names a concrete act (asking Growwer's team to run link building for a website) and the outcome (the team contacts the user), which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the other managed-service siblings (estimate_managed_service_proposals, request_managed_service_campaign, list_managed_service_proposals), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Use this when a user without a managed service wants Growwer's team to run their link building" gives a clear, actionable trigger condition tied to a user state. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent gets a positive cue but no guidance for the adjacent managed-service tools.

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