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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining what the document contains and its role as a precursor to a walk, reinforcing that no side effects occur. It does not describe the return format, but the strong annotation coverage lowers the disclosure burden.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states what the document is and its contents, the second gives the practical usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every phrase 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 read-only document lookup with a single documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the document is and when to read it. It could explicitly state that the return value is the document text, but the 'document' framing makes this inferable, so the gap is minor.

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 only parameter, 'shop', is fully documented in the schema as 'the shop's slug' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema alone sufficiently explains how to populate the argument.

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 precisely identifies the tool as a document ('the shop's concierge as a document') and enumerates its contents: the questions it asks, the catalog, the formula, and the ending. It frames the action as reading the document before starting a walk, which clearly distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like concierge_walk and concierge_ask.

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 phrase 'Read this to know what a walk will ask before you start one' provides a clear condition for when to use the tool: before initiating a concierge walk. It implies the alternative (actually running a walk) without naming the specific sibling or stating exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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