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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful outcome context: the team's reply appears in the case status and on the case page, which helps the agent understand what happens after invocation.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the action and recipient before the outcome. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and outcome. It could mention what happens if the confirmation token is invalid or expired, but the schema already documents validity, so this is a minor 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 the schema already documents both parameters, including the idempotency key's retry behavior and the confirmation token's 15-minute validity. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Sends'), the resource ('the message prepared with a confirmation_token'), the recipient ('SOS Flights team'), and the precondition ('after the traveller confirmed it'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sos_prepare_message, which produces the message and token.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: use after the traveller has confirmed the message prepared in an earlier step. It does not explicitly name sos_prepare_message as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of 5.

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