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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: callbacks occur during opening hours, there is no time commitment, the number is kept at most 30 days (GDPR), the subject is quoted verbatim and never interpreted, and a specific GDPR sentence must be relayed. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations and gives the agent a full picture of side effects and constraints.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a short closing note, with no fluff. The main action and critical condition are front-loaded, followed by optional parameters and then behavioral/legal notes. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple callback-request tool, the description covers usage conditions, parameter handling, callback scheduling, data retention, and a GDPR note. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, 'Limits apply' is vague and the meaning of 'relay the information sentence' is not fully elaborated, leaving 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by expanding the phone number format with accepted countries (+32…; BE FR NL LU DE GB CH ES IT PT), explaining that 'sujet' is quoted and never interpreted, and restating the slot enum. This extra context helps the agent supply correct values.

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 a specific verb 'asks' and a specific resource 'Gold & Silver Company team to call the person back', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also adds a restrictive condition ('ONLY when the person explicitly asks for it and gives their own number') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ask' or 'cotation'.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: only when the person explicitly requests a callback and provides their own international number. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly say when NOT to use it in favor of other tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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