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

Annotations already clearly indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful contextual fact that gift cards are valid at every location, but it does not disclose the return format, level of detail, or any other behavioral constraints. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the added fact about validity at every location is relevant and succinct.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations covering safety. The description provides the necessary topical scope and a key business rule, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 provides information about Floreal Holidays gift cards, specifically amounts, languages, and where to buy one. This is a specific resource and topic, and it is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_faq, get_menu, or list_locations.

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 implies this tool should be used when a user asks about gift card amounts, languages, or purchasing locations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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