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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, static, self-contained read profile is covered. The description adds useful domain disambiguation ('private pre-booked transfers, not a taxi or rideshare') but says nothing about return format or whether the data is static/cached.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the returned facts, the second disambiguates the service model. The core payload is front-loaded.

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 carries the return burden and does so by enumerating the fact categories. It is complete for a parameterless lookup tool, though it could note that all facts are returned in one call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs.

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 (retrieves business facts) and enumerates the exact resource contents: contact, hours, fleet, inclusions, policies. This clearly separates it from the transactional siblings (check_availability, get_quote, request_booking) without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by content type — an agent can infer this answers 'about the business' questions rather than pricing or booking — but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or pointer to the sibling tools that handle the transactional cases.

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