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

Annotations are all false, providing no positive behavioral guidance. The description adds meaningful side-effect context: the quote request is not sent immediately but only after the user confirms by email. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent how to handle the user's expectation.

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 tight sentences: the first covers what and when; the second covers a crucial workflow detail. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral caveat is placed in the final sentence where it stands out.

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?

Given the rich schema with 100% coverage, an output schema, and a clear trigger in the description, the tool is adequately documented. The main missing item is an explicit reference to the operator_slug fan-out option (send to one vs many), but that is covered in the schema, so this is a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter, including optionality and city_slug vs city_other. The description mentions 'city' but not the exact parameter mapping, yet this is sufficiently handled by the structured schema. No additional semantic value is added by the description.

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 the precise action ('Submit a valet parking quote request'), the resource ('operators serving a US city'), and the user scenario. It clearly differentiates this submission tool from sibling search/find operators, since it's the only one that creates a quote request.

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?

The description provides an explicit trigger: 'when a person has asked you to arrange valet and has given their name, email, phone, city, service type and event date.' It also adds a critical timing constraint: the request is sent only after email confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, leaving slight ambiguity with the operator-finding tools.

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