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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it reveals the prerequisite (at least one passed activity), the exact outputs (accumulated rewards, passport_url, owner_message), and the nuance that passing all three activities yields a full result. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the structured hints.

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 dense sentences carry a lot of meaning: action, condition, outputs, follow-up, and idempotency. Every clause is useful and the most important condition is front-loaded.

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 only one simple parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description covers all necessary behavioral and usage context. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema describes stay_id only as a required UUID with no further description. The description adds minimal but real context by implying that stay_id refers to the stay in which activities have been passed SkinnerBox. It does not explain how to obtain stay_id or any validation constraints beyond the schema, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 specific action ('Complete check-out') and resource context (resort stay), lists the conditions and expected outputs, and distinguishes itself from resort_passport by noting the permanent passport is obtained separately. This is a clear, specific definition that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after at least one passed activity') and provides a follow-up action ('then retrieve the permanent passport with resort_passport'). It also notes that repeating check-out is safe. It does not explicitly explain when not to use it or compare to other sibling tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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