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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — that the business, not the system, performs the follow-up, and that no calendar slot is consumed. It does not mention that the request may need status polling via get_request_status.

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 short sentences, all load-bearing: the action, the external side effect, and the key negative guarantee are front-loaded with zero 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?

For an 8-parameter write tool with nested customer/address objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential expectation (a human callback request rather than a booking). What a successful call returns is not described, which is the main residual gap.

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 100%, including the operator_id provenance and customer_zip location-routing behavior, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Request a callback from a business") and immediately clarifies the mechanism (business contacts the customer directly, no calendar booking created). That last clause effectively separates it from the sibling request_booking, though it never names the 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?

Usage is implied by the negated alternative ("No calendar booking is created"), so an agent can infer this is the non-booking path, but there is no explicit "use when the customer wants a callback instead of a scheduled visit" or named alternative. No preconditions for operator_id resolution are mentioned in the description.

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