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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the return value but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens on duplicate requests. The behavioral description is minimal.

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 a single sentence—no fluff, front-loaded with the main action. While it could be more structured, it earns its place by being direct.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter semantics, required fields, or error handling, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 description does not explain any parameters beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is only 17% (only preferred_date_1 has a format hint). The description adds no value to parameter understanding, leaving the agent to guess meanings of notes, kid_id, etc.

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 action: 'Submit a daycare tour request' and specifies the return value (tour id + status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parent_cancel_tour and parent_list_tours.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclude cases. The description lacks any context about the appropriate scenario for using this tool.

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