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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the privacy/data disclosure: 'No names, addresses, VINs or contact details are required,' plus the fact that it operates on *existing public* worksheets. Useful context beyond the annotations, though nothing on auth or scoping 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then options, then scope limits. No filler and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety semantics. With purpose, exclusions and privacy stated, the definition is nearly complete; the remaining gap is the 5-parameter semantic layer that the description only vaguely touches.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. The 'options add the equipment-specific storage inventory or technician report' sentence vaguely gestures at returning_from_storage and unresolved_equipment_issue, but trip_days and cold_weather get no mention and no parameter is named or explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Select and order existing public worksheets') scoped to a first trip, overnight stop and follow-up. The scope is distinctive, but it never names a sibling to differentiate itself from search_rv_worksheets or get_rv_worksheet, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (first campervan/RV trip planning) plus explicit when-not exclusions: 'does not plan a route, calculate equipment capacity, diagnose faults, or approve safety.' Strong exclusion framing, but it does not route the agent to the tool that *does* handle those tasks.

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