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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool submits an external request, that RoboHub will reply by email within 2 business days with a shortlist/pricing/intros, that the service is free and vendor-neutral, and that it must only be called with consent and real contact details. This makes the side effects and external-communication nature clear. It could add an explicit 'irreversible' or 'data shared with third-party vendors' warning, but the current text is already substantive.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second describes the deliverable and timing, the third reassures about neutrality/cost, and the fourth states the critical consent/real-data requirement. The key purpose is front-loaded, and there is no 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?

Given this is an external action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, expected outcome, response channel and timing, cost, neutrality, and explicit consent requirements. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the tool call itself returns immediately (e.g., a submission confirmation), but the email-reply framing already implies the call just submits the request.

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 baseline is 3 because each parameter already has its own explanation. The tool description adds context about the free shortlist and 2-business-day email response, which helps explain why fields like use_case, budget_range, and email matter, but it does not add explicit parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. A 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a B2B sourcing request to RoboHub on behalf of the user.' It then states the concrete outcome (shortlist of 2-4 matching robots, indicative pricing, warm vendor introductions). This clearly distinguishes it from the browsing/ comparing siblings (search_robots, compare_robots) because it is an external submission action, not an information retrieval tool.

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 description gives clear context for when to use it: when the user wants a vendor-intro shortlist from RoboHub, not just robot data. It also provides a hard precondition: 'Only call this with the user's explicit consent and their real contact details.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a full 5.

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