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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: answers are grounded in the company's approved information and returned in the customer's language, and it reasserts that no booking state is altered. It omits latency, failure modes, or what happens when the company has no approved answer.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and topic scope, followed by response behavior and the read-only boundary. Every clause contributes; no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so adequately: a free-text answer in the customer's language drawn from company-approved information. The remaining gap is the no-answer/unknown case, which an agent would need to know before promising the customer an answer.

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 leaves `question` undocumented beyond a 2000-char limit, but the description compensates by listing the kinds of content a question may carry. It also reinforces the language parameter by stating the answer comes back in the customer's language, adding meaning the schema's BCP-47 note doesn't fully cover.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Ask the company a free-text question") and immediately enumerates the topic domain (requirements, deposit, insurance, documents, opening hours, pickup instructions). The closing clause explicitly separates it from the booking-mutation siblings in the toolset.

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?

It makes clear when to use this tool (free-text factual questions to the company) and when not to ("never starts, changes or completes a booking"), which routes booking actions to confirm_booking/cancel_booking. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the routing is inferential rather than spelled out.

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