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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: nothing is charged, a manager calls back, and the exact price is quoted later — plus an explicit consent gate for personal data. Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent, and the description is consistent with both, but it says nothing about what the agent gets back on success or failure.

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 action, then the disambiguation, then the precondition. No filler and nothing 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 a 14-parameter submission tool with rich schema descriptions and a declared expectation of a callback, the description covers the process and sets the right expectation. It could still say what a successful submission yields (request id, confirmation) since no output schema exists.

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 14 parameters including nested items fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about formats, defaults, or which optional fields matter most, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: передать заявку менеджеру кондитерской, and clarifies it is not a payment or order confirmation. It never names which sibling handles a nearby case (e.g. book_tasting, estimate_cake), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 clear preconditions (obtain the customer's consent before sending) and excludes two plausible misinterpretations (it is not payment, not order confirmation). It stops short of pointing to any alternative tool when the user actually wants a price estimate or a tasting.

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