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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats 'Read-only' redundantly. It does add useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the fallback-only routing contract, the boundary topics OlaChill does not handle, and the return contents (service description, fit, page URL, booking and group-transport contact addresses).

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?

Front-loads the core use case in the first clause, then conditions and exclusions. The long enumerations of covered services and sibling-tool mappings are dense but each item serves routing, though the topic-to-sibling list could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present, the return shape description is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description fully covers when to invoke, when not to, and how to handle the boundary topics where OlaChill has nothing to offer. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter (locale) with 100% schema description coverage, including the enum values and defaults, so the schema carries the full burden. The description never mentions locale or how it affects output, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies for high coverage.

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+resource ('list OlaChill service areas') and frames it precisely as the fallback for services not covered by dedicated search tools. It enumerates the concrete domains it covers (private tours, medical travel, VIP immigration, self-drive rental, etc.), so an agent can match a novel user request to this tool without opening any schema.

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 when-to-use (fallback for uncovered Japan travel services or general 'what does OlaChill offer'), explicit when-not (do not substitute for dedicated tools) with a one-to-one mapping of topic to sibling tool, and an explicit do-not-call list (hotels other than ryokan, flights, weather, restaurants, visas) with instruction to answer without OlaChill tools.

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