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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns a read-only set of company facts and lists those facts, which is sufficient for a no-parameter information lookup. It does not detail response structure, but the enumeration partially compensates.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that leads with 'Company facts' and then provides a focused, semicolon-separated list of content areas. Every item earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 simple, no-argument, read-only company info lookup, the description is nearly complete: it names the main content categories an agent would need to decide whether this tool satisfies a request. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit enumeration of returned information areas.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the empty schema fully defines the parameter space, so there is nothing substantive to document. The description adds useful context about what data the call returns, satisfying the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 clearly identifies the resource—Tripyana company facts—and enumerates the exact categories covered, including licence, contact details, policies, and service pages. This makes it easy to distinguish from the pricing, booking, and search sibling tools even without an explicit verb.

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 itemized content gives an agent clear context for when to call this tool: whenever company-level facts or general policy details are needed. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of price/search tools,' but the boundary is obvious from the listed content and sibling names.

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