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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive call. The description adds real context beyond that: the request goes to a human sales desk, the buyer is contacted by email or phone with price, specs and records, and nothing is reserved, offered or agreed. That last clause usefully bounds the side effects, though it does not discuss timing or failure handling.

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 core action and its two modes are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the precondition and the non-binding disclaimer. It is dense but every clause carries information; the opening sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what happens after the call, and it does: the desk contacts the buyer with asking price, specs and records. Combined with the precondition and the non-binding statement, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 meaning the schema does not: supplying a reference means interest in a specific aircraft, while omitting it and describing the aircraft in the question turns the call into a find-request. That conditional relationship between two parameters is genuinely useful.

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 buyer's interest in a listed aircraft, or a find-request, to the Altivo Jets sales desk. It also distinguishes the two modes (with reference vs. without reference) and is clearly separable from siblings like search_aircraft_for_sale or request_quote.

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 an explicit gating condition: call only when the buyer asks to be contacted, after confirming name and email. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the case where the buyer does not want contact, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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