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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing that results have a flat daily rate per bag and include insurance. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention pagination or result limits.

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 core functionality in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second. No redundant or unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. It misses details on output format or result behavior, but annotations (openWorldHint) and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds little new information about parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mainly reinforces the 'near' parameter as optional landmark. 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 clearly states the tool finds bookable luggage storage near the user's location, listing examples of locations (shops, cafes, hotels) and specific use cases (before check-in, after check-out, layover, day trip). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover flights, car rentals, eSIM, tours, and transfers.

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 explicitly says 'Use for any request to store / drop off / leave bags or luggage in a city' and provides example scenarios. While it does not state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools are clearly different domains, so the context is sufficient for correct tool selection.

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