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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the substantive point that the payload is a static block of policy/FAQ facts rather than live booking data, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about return formatting or size.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the subject ('Facts about AHM Transfer') followed by the content inventory. The enumeration is long but each item is meaningful content, not 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of stating what comes back, and the enumerated fact categories do that reasonably well. The main remaining gap is that the schema's language parameter is not linked to how the FAQ text is returned.

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% and the single enum parameter (language, default en) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the language parameter, and its use of 'languages' as a content category (service languages) risks being read as the same thing as the language input.

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 enumerates the facts the tool returns (vehicles, capacity, payment, cancellation, policies, service area, contact, FAQ), which tells an agent the resource being fetched. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_transfer_price or list_routes, which also return service-specific data.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than get_transfer_price, list_routes, or create_booking_link. The usage (answering general informational/policy questions) is only implied by the enumerated content, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.

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