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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is reserved, and the reply arrives via notification settings and in list_inquiries. It doesn't warn that repeated calls create separate inquiries despite non-idempotency, which would have closed the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and trigger, followed by the no-reservation guarantee and the reply channel. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Explains where the response appears, which is important given there is no output schema. Minor gaps remain around what granted_permissions should contain and whether duplicate inquiries are expected, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 83%, so the schema already documents message, body_kind, and both window fields. The description's 'offer other windows' hints at what window_start/window_end mean in an inquiry context, but adds nothing about granted_permissions, the most consequential required parameter.

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 ('Ask a listing's host about a robot') and scopes it to offline or currently-leased robots. The 'Reserves nothing' clause distinguishes it cleanly from request_lease, a sibling that obviously does reserve something.

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 trigger condition (robot offline or currently leased) and describes the two request shapes (come online now, or offer other windows). It never names request_lease or cancel_inquiry explicitly, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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