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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial context: it must be called after translating to English, answers may only come from directly supporting passages, failure/no-passage behavior is defined, and it explicitly holds no customer/booking/payment/conversation data and cannot mutate anything.

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-loaded with purpose, then usage, then failure handling; every sentence carries an instruction. Slightly dense at five sentences, but no filler and no redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the full operational contract: prerequisites (English translation), grounding rule, failure/no-result handling, and data-scope boundaries. An agent has everything needed to call and use 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning: the query must be translated to English before calling, and the constraint that answers come only from returned passages. It doesn't discuss the audience enum's semantics beyond the schema, so it stays below a 5.

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 ('Search') and resource ('approved Tolk2Go FAQ knowledge base'), which clearly separates it from the booking-management siblings. An agent can identify it as a read-only knowledge retrieval tool without opening 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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it ('before answering questions about booking steps, services, policies, cancellation, payment, or use of Tolk2Go') and provides a fallback rule for failures, timeouts, unavailability, or empty results. Nothing is left to inference.

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