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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a compatibility alias for older clients, it returns three distinct sections in one call, it computes the pet fee for the whole stay, and every item carries a citation. It does not discuss result caps, cost, or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 alias/deprecation note is front-loaded, followed by a one-sentence scope statement, the required inputs, the alternative tools, and compact examples. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 tool with a nested object, an output schema, and full annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the alias relationship, the three-section return shape, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to select or invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description highlights the essentials (place/county, dog weight, dog count, nights, max total pet fee) and the examples show the place/dogs/nights/max_total_fee and stay_types mapping, but it says nothing about near, radius_miles, per_section, include_possible, or response_format beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names the specific operation (plan a trip with a dog) and enumerates the three result sections it returns – stays with computed pet fees, dog-friendly activities nearest-first, and dog-friendly patios – each with citations. It also declares itself as an alias of dogpolicies_plan_trip for older clients, so an agent can tell exactly what it does and that it duplicates a sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use dogpolicies_route_stops for the drive there and dogpolicies_near for a quick list without the stay check', which is a direct when-not-to-use statement naming alternatives. The three worked examples map natural-language requests to concrete argument sets, removing ambiguity about typical invocation.

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