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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, signaling that the tool may take consequential actions. The description adds useful context by noting the agent can invoke its configured business tools for bookings and inquiries, explaining what the agent might do beyond a simple Q&A. However, it does not explicitly warn that a question could trigger a booking or other state changes, relying on the annotation to carry that risk.

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 two sentences with no fluff; the first states the action and resource, the second gives usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place, and the most critical information (prerequisite slug) is front-loaded.

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 open-ended nature and absence of an output schema, the description does enough by explaining the agent's access to business tools and the required slug. It lacks an explicit note about response format, but the 'same chat path' phrase implies a conversational response, and the schema covers the input contract.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including descriptions for slug, question, and conversationId. The description reinforces the need to copy the slug verbatim from specific source tools but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool as a general-purpose conversational interface to a specific business agent ('Ask one specific Qasper business agent'), distinguishing it from the structured sibling tools like book_appointment and check_availability. The reference to the public agent page further clarifies the interaction model.

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 gives a firm prerequisite: use only after selecting a business and copying the exact slug from search_businesses or get_business_info, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It also explains the agent's capabilities (services, pricing, availability, bookings) but does not explicitly exclude using sibling tools for those same actions, so the guidance stops short of a full decision tree.

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