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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 4-hour cooldown per email, the explicit warning against retrying after success, and the clarification that the tool does not reserve hotels or take payment. These details disclose non-obvious side effects and constraints, fully complementing the annotated flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true).

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 four sentences long, every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded. It avoids fluff and redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on quickly.

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 tool's complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description covers usage prerequisites and side effects well but leaves a significant gap: it does not explain what data should be collected for the enquiry or what the response contains. This makes the description sufficient for basic invocation but incomplete for fully autonomous handling of this complex tool.

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?

With 18 parameters and 0% of them described in the tool description, the burden falls on the description to explain at least the key parameters. It mentions 'name' and 'email' as prerequisites, but does not clarify the required 'enquiryType' field or any of the optional ones. The schema enums help, but the description does not compensate for the lack of semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'File a planning enquiry with Jenesis Travel.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_journeys or estimate_budget, which are about browsing or estimating rather than starting a service 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 explicit preconditions ('Call only after the user confirmed name, email, and that they want Jenesis to reply'), a clear exclusion ('If they would rather talk to a person now, share WhatsApp instead of calling this tool'), and a rate-limiting rule with a do-not-retry instruction. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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