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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description reveals key behaviors: the request is confirmed manually by an operator by phone, it is not an immediate booking or payment, consent is mandatory for personal data, and unavailability causes the request not to be created while returning nearest free dates. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying necessary information: purpose, precondition, operator confirmation/non-payment nature, no-availability behavior, and consent requirement. No filler or repetition; the most important usage constraint 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?

The description is strong for a tool with no output schema: it explains preconditions, non-instant nature, and the failure/no-availability branch. It does not describe what a successful response contains (e.g., request ID or 'submitted' status), but the operator-confirmation detail compensates somewhat for that gap.

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 input schema already covers all parameters at 100% with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds further operational meaning: 'consent: true' is required, availability must be checked beforehand, and the date must be a free date for the request to be created. This is valuable, though not extensive beyond schema coverage.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'Заявка на бронь конкретного тура на дату' — a request to book a specific tour on a specific date. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like create_lead and make_trip_plan by naming the exact resource (tour booking request) and the key parameters (tour, date).

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 explicitly instructs the agent to verify availability via get_tour_availability before calling, and explains what happens when no seats are available. It also clarifies that this is not an instant booking or payment, setting expectations for when it should be used. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the precondition and behavioral clarifications are strong.

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