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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context that unpublished rules are null or omitted, but it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or other operational behavior beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the purpose before enumerating scope. The long list is dense but each item helps define what policies are returned, and there is no obvious 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 a simple read-only policy lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides enough scope and notes the null/omitted behavior for unpublished rules. It is complete enough to call correctly, though better usage routing against sibling tools would improve it.

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 optional lang parameter is fully described in the schema, including enum values and the Arabic-specific note. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource, booking rules/policies, and enumerates the facts returned, including deposit, booking window, service hours, cancellation, licence, SIREN, and FAQ. This makes the tool clearly identifiable and separable from siblings like get_prices or check_availability, though it does not name an alternative 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 content list: an agent can infer this tool is for policy and FAQ facts rather than availability or pricing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools such as check_availability or get_prices.

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