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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real context: a Telegram draft is created but not sent, the client must review and send manually, and a human (Felix) confirms availability and price. That human-in-the-loop framing is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot convey.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key constraint (unsent draft, no submission) appears immediately. Slightly choppy delivery, with the "Felix" sentence introducing an unexplained actor, but nothing is wasteful.

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 creation-style tool with no output schema, the description omits what a successful call returns (draft text or identifier) and how the optional return-trip fields should be populated. It covers the safety/workflow picture well but leaves parameter-level behavior gaps.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 45% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: it marks origin/destination as required and clarifies that times are local to each departure point (relevant to return_time). It says nothing about flight, guests, luggage, comments, or how return_requested interacts with return_date/return_time.

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 first sentence gives a concrete verb and resource: "Prepare an unsent Telegram draft for a transfer," which is far more specific than the title's restatement. The transfer domain implicitly separates it from prepare_tour_request, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Origin and destination are required" plus "Other details may be discussed later" tells the agent it may proceed with sparse data, and "No submission" clarifies the end of the workflow. However, it never states when to pick this over prepare_tour_request or get_services, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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