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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses major behavioral constraints: strict schema, no alias mapping, non-supported fields (city, checkin_date/checkout_date), and a redirect for budget constraints. This adds valuable context beyond the tool name and schema.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The IMPORTANT section uses bullet-like formatting for clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete: it states the purpose, usage trigger, and key restrictions. It adequately prepares the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate; description does not need to add parameter info.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Return the strict standard schema for user_profile.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on schema retrieval rather than extraction or updating, and lists what fields are not allowed.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when the external model is unsure what fields are allowed.' However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention specific alternatives beyond implicit differentiation from siblings.

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