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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and lookup scope are covered structurally. The description adds that this surfaces FAQ/policy content, but says nothing about whether the answer is a static knowledge base versus synthesized, nor about truncation or confidence.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the usage note follows. The long topic list is helpful for retrieval cueing but borders on padding, with "and any other frequently asked questions" adding no information.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough for an agent to call it correctly. Return format is unmentioned but not strictly required given the simple contract.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'question' field and its examples. The topic enumeration in the description loosely mirrors those examples, adding little beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb (get information) plus a concrete, enumerated resource (Airport Pickups London services, policies, vehicles, pricing, cancellation, etc.). The topic list makes it unmistakably distinct from the booking-management siblings like amend_booking and cancel_booking.

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?

"Use this when customers ask about how the service works" gives a clear triggering context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the sibling set makes the FAQ role obvious by contrast.

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