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

Beyond the annotations, discloses that the shop mails the quote (side effect), that the tool is deterministic (no model on our side), and that the conversation is sealed as a receipt visible to the shop owner. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences pack the purpose, protocol, and behavioral warnings with zero filler. Main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence 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 stateful multi-turn tool with no output schema, the description covers how to start, how to continue, and the terminal side effect (mailing). It does not enumerate error conditions or exact response shape, but the essential flow is complete.

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?

Adds meaning to the parameters by explaining the relationship: omit `walk` to start, pass `walk` and `answer` together for each turn. It also clarifies that the `answer` to the email question must contain a real readable address. The schema only describes fields individually, so this is valuable.

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?

States a specific verb (walk) and resource (shop's concierge) with a clear goal (get a real quote). The start/continue protocol distinguishes it from sibling tools like concierge_ask and concierge_document.

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 explicit step-by-step for starting (omit `walk`) and continuing (pass `walk` + `answer`), plus the warning about the email address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the operational context is clear.

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