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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real value on top: the inquiry is non-binding, it does not contact a merchant, reserve, pay, or create financial authority, and Public-Agent control/caller IDs do not confer private buyer authority. That is substantive disclosure of side effects and auth semantics beyond the flags. It stops short of covering failure modes or what a rejected authorization looks like.

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, then the non-effects. Dense and jargon-heavy ('app commerce:attribute key plus a separate owner-approved finite buyer authorization in its protected header') but every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padded.

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?

A 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation requires the description to explain the input surface, and it does not. It is well-covered on authorization and non-effects but leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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?

With 15 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it conveys none — destination, title, service_date, plan_id, option_id, party_size, idempotency_key, and the rest are never mentioned. A caller cannot tell from this text what a plan_revision or capsule_handoff_ref is for.

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: 'Save one non-binding inquiry'. The negation clause ('does not contact a merchant, reserve, pay') sharpens the scope of what 'save' means. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like evuun_prepare_service_inquiry or evuun_get_service_inquiry, so the agent must infer the prepare-vs-create boundary.

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 names the authorization precondition (requests:write grant, or commerce:attribute key plus a separate owner-approved buyer authorization) and clarifies the operation has no merchant-facing effect. However, it never says when to pick this over evuun_prepare_service_inquiry, or what to do when the grant is missing — that routing is left to inference.

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