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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns not just a recommendation but also a reason and the other courses, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema and 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and inputs; the second explains the return shape. Every 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 read-only recommendation tool with three fully documented parameters, the description explains the inputs, the output shape, and the fact that it returns alternatives. It could be slightly more complete by distinguishing itself from sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for calling it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names two key inputs (budget and sake preference) in plain language but adds no new meaning beyond the schema; the lang parameter is only documented in the schema, which is acceptable given full 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Suggest'), a resource ('a course'), and the exact inputs it uses (budget per person and sake preference). It also clarifies the return value (the suggestion, a reason, and the other courses), which distinguishes it from simply listing courses.

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 description implies the tool is for when a guest needs a single course recommendation based on budget and sake preference, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of get_booking_link or list_courses. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints, so the guidance is only implicit.

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