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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it goes well beyond a bare 'schedule' by disclosing that it generates a visit code and QR code, that this code proves the AI-buyer connection to the dealer, and that it enables the $100-$200 incentive. It does not mention side effects like dealer notifications or persistence, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and accurate. No contradiction.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then explaining outputs and usage. The third sentence ('This is how the dealer knows...') and fourth condition are useful, though 'proves the connection' is slightly redundant with the prior sentence. Overall efficient and well-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 no output schema, the description does explain the key outputs (visit code and QR code) and the required precondition. It doesn't enumerate optional parameters, failure modes, or return format, but the 100%-coverage input schema handles parameter semantics. This is enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though a slight gap around dealer notification or return details prevents a 5.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'test drive, purchase, trade-in appraisal,' which loosely mirrors the visit_type parameter values, but it does not add detail beyond the schema's own property descriptions. It provides no extra parameter-specific semantics, so 3.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-object pair, 'Schedule a dealer visit,' and enumerates the visit types (test drive, purchase, trade-in appraisal), which distinguishes it from sibling session tools like message/deal. It also uniquely identifies the tool's output (visit code and QR code), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides an explicit triggering condition: 'Only use when the buyer explicitly says they want to visit the dealer.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the clear focus on dealer visits implies when this should be used over session messaging or deal tools. No explicit exclusions beyond the condition, so 4.

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