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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantive context: the draft is persisted, only public source facts are saved, owner dates/notes remain private until authenticated binding, and there is no dispatch/payment/booking authority. It does not mention the idempotency_key handling that the idempotentHint implies.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Some phrasing is dense jargon ('bounded anonymous public-reference inquiry draft', 'pure buyer handoff URL') that costs a little clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the identifier family and the draft's lifecycle. It does cover the return value (handoff URL), which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but leaves the parameter surface almost entirely undocumented.

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?

All 18 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance at all. The confusing pairs (plan_id vs public_plan_id vs plan_revision vs public_plan_revision, source_item_id vs capsule_handoff_ref, idempotency_key, hotel_query_parameters) are left entirely unexplained, which is a serious gap for a tool with this many overlapping identifiers.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Prepare and persist a bounded anonymous public-reference inquiry draft' with the return value named ('actual pure buyer handoff URL'). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like evuun_create_service_inquiry, evuun_prepare_hotel_inquiry, or evuun_prepare_service_handoff, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

Scope limits are implied by 'No dispatch, private read, payment or booking authority,' which tells the agent this is not the tool for actually sending or paying. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for the create-vs-prepare decision.

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