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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is well covered. The description's 'Read-only' simply restates the annotation, adding no new behavioral detail; the 'No wholesale prices' scope note is the only genuinely additive information.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the topic and followed by the two constraints. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations.

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?

With no parameters, no nested objects and no output schema, the definition has little to explain, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Still, it never says what the tool actually returns (guidance text? contact list? ordering process?), leaving the agent to guess at the output shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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 names a concrete resource (the Travel Case) and audience (stores/foodservice operators), so the topic is identifiable. However, the verb is oblique – 'How ... can order' is a content/FAQ framing, not a stated action, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'where_to_buy', which plausibly covers the same ordering question.

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?

'No wholesale prices' implies a when-not constraint (don't use this for pricing), which is a small usage signal. But there is no statement of when this tool should be selected over 'where_to_buy' or 'get_policies', and no preconditions or alternatives are offered.

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