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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it composes from validated rules only, covers specific topics, and explicitly avoids pricing. This goes beyond annotation data.

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?

One dense sentence with a list of covered topics plus a brief routing instruction. No wasted words, but the long list makes it slightly heavy. Still efficient and well front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations covering side effects, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope, constraints (no price), and content areas. Minor missing details about parameter behavior are covered by the schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 83% with 5 of 6 parameters described. The description's mention of the 1 kg appointment rule is already present in the or_estime_g schema description, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Composes') and resource ('what a visitor needs to know before coming'), enumerates exact content areas, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling cotation ('Never a price: use cotation'). An agent can unambiguously identify its purpose.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (cotation) for pricing and gives the condition when not to use this tool ('Never a price'). The description also implies the use case (pre-visit preparation) with contextual details like the 1 kg appointment threshold.

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