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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content by enumerating the policy fields returned and noting California/Nevada coverage counts, which tells an agent what a successful call yields. It stops short of addressing unknown-brand errors or fallback behavior.

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 sentences plus a compact brand roster; the alias/scope statement is front-loaded before the content detail. The brand list is long but earns its place as a valid-value enumeration, and the example sentence is short. Slight redundancy between the brand roster and the examples keeps it from a 5.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return shape, and it sensibly sticks to naming the covered fields and enumerating valid brand inputs. What is missing is minor: behavior when an unlisted brand is passed, and whether the alias differs at all from the canonical tool in output or freshness.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Brand id or name' by listing every supported brand with its id slug and giving worked examples ('red-roof', 'Kimpton') that demonstrate slug-vs-display-name and casing tolerance. That is real added meaning the schema does not carry.

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 (a hotel chain's published pet policy) and enumerates exactly what fields it covers: pets per room, weight limit, fee, rules, exceptions, and state-level property counts. It also identifies itself explicitly as the alias of dogpolicies_get_brand_policy, which lets an agent tell it apart from the canonical sibling without opening either 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?

The phrase 'Alias of dogpolicies_get_brand_policy, kept for older clients' implicitly routes new callers to the canonical tool and explains why this one exists. There is no explicit 'use X instead when Y' statement or exclusion list, so the guidance is clear but inferential rather than directive.

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