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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the manager will call, the request is not a booking or payment, and the lead will not be created without consent:true. This is especially useful context for an agent deciding whether this is the right non-transactional action.

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 description is three tightly packed sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then the essential requirements and privacy condition, and every sentence adds actionable guidance.

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 a simple request-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, required fields, side effect, and a critical precondition. The only minor gap is the absence of any mention of a confirmation response, but it is not essential given how focused and clear the rest is.

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 parameters are already documented, and the description adds practical semantics: it explains what comment should contain (dates, group composition, interests) and stresses that consent:true must come from a direct question. This goes beyond the schema and flags the failure condition.

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 specific verb and resource ('Оставить заявку на подбор тура по Камчатке') and immediately clarifies the tool's scope by stating 'Не бронь и не оплата — только заявка', distinguishing it from the sibling create_booking_request. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even without inspecting the schema.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a user wants to leave a tour-selection request and expects a manager to call. It also excludes booking/payment scenarios, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use in those cases.

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