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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them, including closure semantics (available:false with the closure message), partial closures affecting only some vehicles, blackout windows, and after-hours fee exposure that surfaces in the quote before booking.

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?

The core answer (whether a pre-booked pickup is possible) is front-loaded, and every following sentence carries a distinct rule. It is dense and packs several clauses into single sentences, but 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the available:false return path and closure messaging. Remaining gaps are minor: it does not describe the positive return shape or note that pax caps at 14, though the schema covers the latter.

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 coverage is 100%, so date/time/pax formats are already documented; the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by giving the date and time parameters real business meaning: standard rates 6am–9pm AEST, after-hours fee outside that window, and the 12-hour direct-contact rule.

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: whether CGC can take a pre-booked pickup at a given date and time. This is clearly distinct from get_quote, get_service_info, and request_booking, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 real when-not guidance: same-day requests should phone 0416 131 285, travel within 12 hours needs direct contact, and Christmas Day is closed. It does not, however, route the agent to any alternative sibling tool (e.g. use get_quote for pricing, request_booking to actually book), which keeps it short of a 5.

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