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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing, non-read operation. The description adds useful specifics beyond that: Bota answers in the customer's language using approved info, and the conversation can actually complete a booking for booking_via_agents=true companies, explaining what the mutation consists of.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by behavior and the booking edge case. Efficient and well-ordered, though the parenthetical example list is slightly loose.

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 reasonably covers behavior: language handling, source of answers, and the conditional booking case. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g., that an answer/message is returned and a session_id should be carried forward), which would help an agent chain calls.

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 description coverage is 75%, with the schema already documenting language (BCP-47), company_id, and session_id in detail. The description only implicitly reinforces the session concept ('within a session') and the language behavior, adding little beyond the structured fields; the 2000-char message limit is left entirely to 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'send a free-text message to the company's Bota agent within a session', plus the domain (conditions, insurance, extras, changes). This clearly separates it from the action-specific siblings like search_availability and select_offer, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (open questions about conditions, insurance, extras, changes) and a notable secondary case for booking_via_agents=true companies. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit guidance on when to prefer the specialized siblings (e.g., select_extras, provide_customer_details) over free-text chat.

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