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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true but the description adds concrete behavioral detail: 'identical retries return the existing request, changed preferences require staff follow-up.' It also clarifies side effects with 'No appointment is booked or message sent' and notes the private key/contact usage. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and precondition, then packs behavioral constraints into compact sentences. The line about preferred_times is mildly redundant with the schema, but every other sentence adds distinct value and the overall length is appropriate.

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?

Given four required parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers preconditions, idempotency, side effects, contact/key usage, and the handoff limit. Nothing an agent needs to avoid misinvocation is missing; the only omitted details are already covered by the output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Include preferred dates, times and timezone in preferred_times' largely echoes the schema's parameter description. No additional semantic meaning is added beyond what the schema already documents.

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: 'request human tour coordination for selected apartments.' Adds scoping conditions 'After report approval and explicit renter consent' and 'Uses the existing private research key and contact,' which clearly separates this from sibling request_apartment_research without needing the 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?

Provides clear context: 'After report approval and explicit renter consent' states when this tool is valid, and 'One handoff per research report' sets an important boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisites are strong enough to guide selection.

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