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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, potentially destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the request is sent to staff, a request reference is returned, the user must explicitly confirm and consent, and the action does not book or reserve a vehicle.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical confirmation prerequisites and the non-booking clarification.

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?

This is a complex tool with 30 parameters, nested objects, low schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and confirmation requirements well, but it does not provide enough detail about the many input fields for an agent to use the tool confidently without relying heavily on incomplete schema descriptions.

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 description only explains the two consent/confirmation flags, while the schema has 30 parameters and just 40% description coverage. Many important parameters, including days, vehicle_type, add_ons, dates, prefectures, and idempotency_key, receive no additional semantic guidance in the description.

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 and resource: it sends a charter quote request to Tokyo Charter Bus staff and returns a request reference. It also distinguishes the action from booking or reserving a vehicle, so an agent can understand the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 explicit preconditions: call only after the user has reviewed the details, explicitly confirmed sending them, and agreed to the privacy policy, with user_confirmed and privacy_consent set to true. It also clarifies that this does not book or reserve a vehicle, though it does not explicitly point to sibling tools such as estimate_charter_bus_price or get_quote_status.

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