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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add what they cannot. It does: the required `bookings:read` scope and, importantly, a disclosure that free text comes back under `untrusted_fields` and must be treated as data, not instructions — a meaningful safety trait beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the permission and the safety caveat. No filler, and the most operationally important note (untrusted_fields) is placed where it will be read.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the required scope, and the handling of user-generated text in the response. It stops short of saying what the defaults contain or what an empty/unset result looks like, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is added or needed.

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 ('Get my default offer terms'), and the get/set pairing with the sibling set_offer_defaults is inferable from the names. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can guess this is the read-side counterpart to set_offer_defaults, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before composing an offer) or that set_offer_defaults is the mutation alternative.

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