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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the default return shape (use_web_form and continue_url) and the privacy constraint of not collecting contact details by default, then describes the conditional branch that requires privacy-policy and marketing consent before submitting. It also states the downstream effect ('the office then contacts the person') so the agent understands this is an inquiry, not a confirmed reservation.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then the default path, then the conditional path, then the clarifying caveat. The trailing example is long but earns its place by demonstrating the nested customer and consents payload that the prose only describes abstractly.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description need only explain behavior and branch conditions, which it does thoroughly. The unexplained market parameter and the lack of any note on idempotency behavior (despite idempotentHint=true) are the only minor omissions.

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 57%, so the description has to carry weight, and it does: it explains exactly when customer and consents are required (direct submission only, never for a web handoff) and the worked example pins down rent_length, mileage_limit and customer_type usage. The market parameter is never mentioned in either the description or the schema, which is the one remaining gap.

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 states the trigger precisely ('use when the person wants one long-term package') and frames the action as submitting an inquiry that the office follows up on, plus explicitly rules out a booking, which separates it from create_reservation. It never names the action verb outright (submit an inquiry) and only references search_long_term_offers indirectly via the schema, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 a clear when-to-use trigger and a when-not ('this is not a booking'), and it spells out the two operating modes: default web-form handoff versus direct submission when direct inquiries are enabled. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that search_long_term_offers must run first from the schema alone.

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