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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that nothing is booked or held, that the requester receives an email link, that the request is delivered only after confirmation, and that qualification questions may require a second call. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and workflow transparency needed.

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 core action, then immediately gives the key precondition, followed by essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and open-world annotations, the description provides a complete picture: consent requirement, no-booking guarantee, confirmation flow, and qualification-question handling. An agent has enough to invoke correctly without guessing.

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 adds valuable workflow context for the answers parameter ('in the same order' and the first-call returns needs_answers with questions), which goes beyond the schema's own description.

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 and resource: 'Sends a charter trip request for one aircraft to the booking contact its owner named.' It clearly describes the action and target, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling tool send_buyer_inquiry.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'Call it only after the person you are helping has asked to proceed, with their own name and email.' It explains the confirmation flow, but does not mention when to use alternatives like check_availability or estimate_charter.

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