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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral quirks: 'Values not supported by canonical copy are explicitly marked confirm_with_coordinator with TODO-for-Megan; never infer a missing number' and 'unknown topics return the current available-topic list.' It also clarifies that the output is an operational summary, not a contract.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, usage guidance, a caveat, and organized examples/hints tags. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure improves readability.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: real-world usage, missing-value handling, alias resolution, and unknown-topic behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description completes the picture.

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 schema already fully documents the topic parameter with an enum and description (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantics such as narrow lexical aliases being accepted and unknown topics returning the available-topic list, providing useful edge-case behavior beyond the schema.

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 states 'Get TempGuru's published booking and procurement policies, plus any currently published public offer' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_plan, get_roles, and get_rate_benchmark by focusing specifically on policy content.

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 explicitly says 'Use for real booking questions that otherwise require an email,' giving a clear when-to-use context. It also provides hints about topic selection and behavior for unknown topics, but it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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