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

Annotations only declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true); the description adds genuinely new behavior: it persists a draft, returns a handoff URL (important since there is no output schema), saves only public facts, and keeps owner dates/notes private until authenticated binding. It also explicitly disclaims dispatch, payment and booking authority. Missing: what happens on repeated calls with the same idempotency_key, or whether drafts expire.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The density of coined terms ('bounded anonymous public-reference', 'pure buyer handoff URL', 'authenticated binding') costs some readability, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 19-parameter write tool with no output schema and a nested object, the description says nothing about required inputs, defaults, or the shape of the returned URL. An agent can infer the safety envelope but not how to construct a valid call, which is the biggest gap given the schema's zero description coverage.

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?

19 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and nested objects (hotel_requirements with occupancies) — the description compensates essentially not at all. The line 'only public source facts are saved' faintly hints that public_* fields are the disclosable ones, but nothing explains plan_id vs public_plan_id vs capsule_handoff_ref, idempotency_key, or the hotel_requirements subfields.

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 verb+resource pair ('prepare and persist ... inquiry draft') is identifiable, and the hotel focus is carried by the tool name. But the phrasing is dense jargon ('bounded anonymous public-reference inquiry draft', 'pure buyer handoff URL') and nothing states how this differs from the near-identical sibling evuun_prepare_service_inquiry or evuun_prepare_service_handoff.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite four sibling 'prepare_*' tools that an agent must choose between. The only routing-adjacent text is a negative scope statement ('No dispatch, private read, payment or booking authority'), which is a boundary, not a selection rule.

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