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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but say nothing about consequences. The description adds real value by stating no payment is taken and nothing is booked or held, and that a human specialist follows up to confirm aircraft, availability, price and operator. It does not warn that repeated calls create duplicate requests (idempotentHint=false), which is the one notable remaining gap.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the outcome, then the negative constraints, then the usage condition. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 an 11-parameter, non-read-only request tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what is sent, who acts next, that no money or hold is involved, and the precondition for calling. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds selection semantics beyond the schema by explaining that empty_leg_ref switches the request to a specific empty leg rather than a general charter, and that name/email are the confirmation channel — useful framing the field-level descriptions do not establish.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: send trip/contact details to the Altivo Jets desk for a full charter or a specific empty leg. It also disambiguates from siblings like get_charter_estimate and booking_handoff by making clear this is a request-for-contact rather than a price lookup or a completed booking.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — 'Use only when the traveller asks Altivo to contact them, and confirm their name and email first' — plus the selector between modes (full charter vs. specific empty leg via empty_leg_ref). It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g., get_charter_estimate for instant pricing), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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