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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the owner-only permission requirement, the scope limitation (MMK and Nausys bookings only, direct boats follow charter.boats terms), the refusal case, and the response shape ('Returns the company as it now stands').

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the policy formula, then constraints and the prerequisite. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; slightly long, though nothing is clearly expendable.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states what is returned. Combined with the stated scope limits, refusal case, and prerequisite call, an agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation correctly without further inference.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with ranges, making 3 the baseline. The description adds value by framing the two policy parameters as a combined rule (cancel at least N days before → M% refunded), which clarifies their interaction rather than just restating them.

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+resource ('Set the company's cancellation policy') and immediately defines the policy semantics via the two parameter names, so the agent knows exactly what outcome is produced. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_cancellation_limits and from the other set_* tools.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Read get_cancellation_limits first'), an authorization constraint ('company owners only'), and a when-not condition ('a company whose boats are all direct is refused'). The agent is routed to the right sibling and knows before calling whether the call can succeed.

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