Request a custom test, pilot, quote or training access

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world tool. The description adds substantial context: a human replies by email within one business day, a reference and pricing are returned, and no credit is consumed. Minor gap: it does not say whether repeated calls create duplicate requests, which matters given idempotentHint is false.

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 purpose and followed by response expectations and cost. No sentence is redundant.

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 an intake/form-submission tool, the definition covers purpose, response contents, turnaround time, and cost – exactly what an agent needs before calling. The parameters are fully documented in the schema and no output schema exists, so nothing material 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 100%, so the schema already explains all nine parameters, including the enum and email reply address. The description adds only a restatement of the request types, not field-level guidance like what makes a useful `field`, `volume` or `decision` value. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource, 'Ask Xzar for something not available self-serve,' and enumerates the request types (custom test, pilot, quote, training access) that match the `type` enum. It is clearly distinguishable from self-serve siblings such as start_task or get_scorecard.

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?

'Ask Xzar for something not available self-serve' gives the condition that selects this tool and implicitly excludes anything covered by self-serve flows. It does not name which sibling to use instead for self-serve requests, leaving that inference to the agent.

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