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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: it stores no report, promises no refund, and the store is unattended with a person answering phone and email. These are behavioral facts not derivable from annotations. It stops just short of describing the reply format, which the output schema covers.

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 critical constraint (read-only, files nothing) is front-loaded and most sentences carry unique facts. The parenthetical 'the site says it does not promise one on a web page' is awkward and slightly redundant with the preceding refund sentence.

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 a single optional parameter, full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the contact channels, what to include and what happens next. The only minor gap is that it does not say what the returned guidance looks like, but the output schema makes that unnecessary.

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% and the single 'language' parameter is fully documented with its enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'in English or Spanish' confirms the parameter's purpose but adds no syntax or fallback detail beyond the schema.

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: it explains how to report a washer, dryer or payment problem, in English or Spanish. The opening 'Read-only' plus 'It files nothing, sends nothing' makes it unambiguous that this is advisory content, which no sibling tool (get_amenities, get_machines, get_pricing) provides.

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 triggering situation (a machine or payment problem) and clarifies what the caller should do next (call, text or email), but it never explicitly says 'use this when X' or contrasts itself with any sibling tool. The negative framing ('it files nothing') does serve as an implicit when-not-to-use signal, keeping this above a 2.

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