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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint): it is deterministic (no LLM), does not confirm availability or final price, does not expose direct contact, and is meant to prevent hallucination. These traits are not implied by the annotations and help the agent set correct expectations.

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 description is concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each clause adds value: what it returns, what it avoids, and the critical slug provenance rule. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required), annotations fully cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, so return values don't need description. The description provides sufficient operational context: when to use it, how to obtain the slug, and what limitations to expect.

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 all three parameters are already well documented. The description repeats the slug rule already present in the schema without adding new meaning, and does not elaborate on plan or intrebare beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Brief deterministic pentru AI concierge al unei cazări' clearly stating the specific output (a deterministic brief) and the resource (an accommodation). It enumerates the contents (public facts, differentiators, suggested questions, guardrails, CTA-uri) and explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it does not consume LLM, does not confirm availability/price, and does not expose direct contact.

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 description states the agent should use the brief to answer property/area questions without inventing, and gives explicit guidance on preparing the slug: if only a name is available, use find_accommodations first. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do (availability, price, direct contact). However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_accommodation, leaving a small gap in tool selection guidance.

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