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

Annotations declare only the generic write/open-world profile, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: a rate limit ("One enquiry per email every 4 hours — do not retry if it already succeeded"), a rejection condition for placeholder addresses, and an explicit statement that it neither reserves nor charges. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Six sentences, each carrying a distinct rule (precondition, anti-fabrication, fallback channel, rate limit, scope limit), with the purpose and gating condition front-loaded. No filler or repetition despite the length.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical call-gating, contact-integrity, and rate-limit concerns thoroughly and the annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of explaining what a successful submission yields (e.g., a reference or confirmation), which is the one remaining 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 description coverage is only 11% across 18 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, but it only elaborates on the contact fields (name/email anti-fabrication rules). The remaining 16 parameters — budget, roomType, enquiryType, groupProgramme, phuketFitPackage, and the rest — receive no semantic guidance in either place, leaving enum choice largely unexplained.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("File a planning enquiry with Jenesis Travel") and immediately delimits scope. It also states what the tool is not ("does not reserve hotels or take payment"), which clearly separates it from siblings like estimate_budget, get_journey, and list_journeys.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Call only after the user has stated their own name and email ... and confirmed they want Jenesis to reply") plus a documented alternative path ("share the contact form or WhatsApp instead of calling this tool"). The when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and fallback routing are all present.

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