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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, but the description adds meaningful outcome detail: '904 Digital Media is alerted right away and calls the customer back. Nothing is booked, and nothing is texted or emailed.' This clarifies the side-effect boundary beyond the hints, though it doesn't cover failure or edge cases.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then conditions, then inputs, then outcome. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return/outcome expectation ('alerts right away, calls back, nothing booked or sent'), and all three required params are covered by the schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters (name, phone format, reason) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that name, phone, and a short reason are needed, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Ask 904 Digital Media to call the customer back') rather than restating the title. It is clearly distinguishable from the booking siblings by its emphasis on the callback outcome, though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

Explicit selection conditions are given: 'Use it when the customer wants to talk first, has no email, or no listed time suits.' These conditions effectively route the agent away from request_booking toward this tool without ambiguity.

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