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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that content exists in both EN and FR and that it includes a pointer to the full terms of service. It also previews a concrete rule (free up to 48 hours before), which helps the agent decide whether the answer is already here.

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?

One dense sentence enumerates the covered topics, followed by a short imperative usage sentence; nothing is wasted and the resource identity is front-loaded. The topic list is long, though each item earns its place by letting the agent match a user question to this tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only content tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is covered and points to the full ToS for depth. The only gap is how the bilingual content and the ToS link are actually surfaced in the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Notably, the absence of any language parameter is not addressed, leaving it unclear whether both locales are always returned.

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?

States a specific resource ("Ménage Parfait terms in plain words") and enumerates its scope: cancellation/change rules, payment, deposit, satisfaction guarantee, schedule, tax credit, and a link to the full ToS. The topic list plus the bilingual note (EN and FR) makes it unmistakably different from booking-oriented siblings such as create_booking or cancel_booking.

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?

"Read before booking, moving or cancelling" gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to the sibling actions that depend on these rules. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to call it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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