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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so excellently. It reveals that the service is free, that confirmation is required before the request is forwarded, that the customer receives an email, and that invented email addresses are forbidden. It also warns about the 409 rejection for direct booking fields.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical constraints and warnings. Every sentence carries important information, though the paragraph is somewhat long and mixes multiple operational rules together.

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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavior and edge cases: request flow, email confirmation, free mediation, and the rejection of direct booking fields. It does not describe the response shape or explicitly cover all parameter combinations, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the main intended scenario.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter-level guidance: kontakt.epost must be a real address, kontakt.meddelande should carry the customer's needs, onskad_tid is preferred, and bekraftad_tid/pass are currently rejected. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool sends a request ('FÖRFRÅGAN') to a supplier and that Saightly mediates the contact. It is specific about the action and resource, and it distinguishes itself from direct booking by noting that direct booking is paused. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like skapa_offertforfragan.

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 clear operational guidance: put the customer's needs in kontakt.meddelande, preferably set onskad_tid, and always use the customer's real email. It also tells the agent not to use bekraftad_tid/pass because they are rejected with 409. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus sibling alternatives, but the context is otherwise clear.

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