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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: explains why it's mutation-capable (delegated chat can invoke booking/inquiry actions) and that clients must obtain explicit confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: action, precondition, mutation warning, and confirmation requirement. Purpose is front-loaded, and there's no fluff. It's slightly longer than minimal but justified by the complexity of the mutation caution.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at the return value. It doesn't mention what the agent returns or the response format. It does explain the mutation aspect and confirmation, but leaves the output unspecified. For a chat tool, the return is likely the agent's message, but that's not stated, leaving a gap.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds a minor nuance for slug ('copy it verbatim') and clarifies the question's purpose, but it mostly relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states the action (ask a specific Qasper business agent), the resource (a business agent identified by slug), and a precondition (only after selecting a business). It differentiates from siblings by being the only tool that talks to a specific business's agent, while tools like search_businesses or book_appointment have distinct purposes.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Use this only after selecting a business and copying its exact slug from a Qasper discovery result.' It also warns about mutation and the need for user confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like send_inquiry, though the slug precondition strongly implies the tool's scope.

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