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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context about the scope of queries it handles (delivery feasibility, cost, timing), which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't describe return format, but an output schema exists, so this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and ending with a clear exclusion. There is no wasted wording, and it reads naturally while being efficiently structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required), existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, what it does, and when not to use. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds one nuance: 'Pass the place as the buyer said it', reinforcing the 'where' parameter's semantics, but this is minor and doesn't significantly enhance understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks delivery to a place, answering whether delivery is available, cost, arrival time, and tonight availability. It explicitly distinguishes from bouquet search by saying it's not needed when already searching bouquets, and it ties usage to pre-bouquet selection, differentiating it from other siblings like quote or order tools.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use conditions: when the buyer asks about delivery to a place, cost, timing, or tonight delivery before choosing a bouquet. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use: when already searching bouquets for that place, which directly references the sibling search_bouquets tool.

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