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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — the knowledge source is the *public* help centre and results are capped at 3 passages with links — though it doesn't say what happens on an empty/no-match result or whether answers are account-specific.

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, zero waste: purpose and covered topics first, then result shape and source. Nothing extraneous.

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 and rich annotations, the description supplies what's missing: source system, topic coverage, and result-count expectation. Only gap is behavior on no-match or out-of-scope questions.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `question` and `lang` fully documented (including allowed language values and default behavior). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Answers questions about using Sissoo ... from the public Sissoo help centre') and enumerates the covered topics (booking, fees, cancelling, refunds, accounts, practitioners). This clearly separates it from the data-lookup siblings like get_practitioner and search_services.

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 topic scope makes the intended use case evident: how-to/support questions rather than entity retrieval. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, but the domain listing implicitly rules out the sibling tools' territory.

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