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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the call is free of charge, lacks live calendar/price quote/confirmed appointment, and is a privacy-reduced version naming the recipient as Sauber mit Sam (Samiha Aktaa).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the cost qualifier and a dense but scannable enumeration of content. It is packed rather than padded, with every clause carrying information, though the semicolon-separated list reads slightly like a data dump.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must disclose what comes back, and it does: offered services, geographic coverage, named recipient, privacy version, enquiry capability, plus explicit exclusions. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result without surprises.

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. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on what the response contains, which is the right allocation for a no-argument tool.

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 ('Returns') and enumerates the resource contents: cleaning services, Vienna coverage, named recipient, privacy version, enquiry capability. It is clearly distinguishable as the informational counterpart to submit_direct_cleaning_inquiry, though it never names that sibling 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?

'FREE' and 'current enquiry capability' imply this is the informational pre-check to call before submitting an inquiry, but the description never states when to use this versus submit_direct_cleaning_inquiry or service_request_preview. The negative scope ('no live calendar, price quote or confirmed appointment') sets capability limits rather than routing guidance.

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