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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it reaches third parties, requires confirming with the user per call, needs a Cotlet API key with app access, and that the confirmation default can be switched off. This is substantial behavioral disclosure that the annotations do not carry.

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 core message is duplicated almost verbatim: 'Not a booking: they contact you to confirm' and then 'It is a request, not a booking: the advertiser contacts you to confirm.' This near-repetition wastes space and dilutes the front-loaded point.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the interaction model, third-party reach, confirmation gating, and the authentication requirement, which is nearly everything an agent needs to call it responsibly. The main gap is the missing contrast with sibling contact tools.

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 four parameters. The description restates the fields (mode, days, time slots) without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Ask the advertiser for a viewing') and clarifies the key distinction that this is not a booking. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic listing actions, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby sibling immobiliare_contact_advertiser, which also reaches the advertiser.

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 conveys the usage context ('Not a booking', 'the advertiser contacts you to confirm') and a procedural instruction to confirm with the user before calling. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when this is preferable to immobiliare_contact_advertiser, leaving routing to inference.

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