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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully layers on what the output contains (fit level with reasons, matching membership, price or "contact sales", confirmations needed, next step) and a hard scoping constraint. It does not mention that all eight inputs are optional, which would help an agent call it with minimal data.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the return shape and constraints; almost every clause carries information. The enumeration of return fields is slightly long but earns its place given no parameter docs exist.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; what it does add — fit semantics, price handling, 'contact sales' fallback, no-booking guarantee — is the right material. The gap is behavioral edge cases (all-params-optional, behavior when nothing fits).

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers five of eight inputs well — team size, area/landmark with concrete examples ('near the Ferry Building', 'Montgomery', 'Pac Heights'), workspace type, monthly budget, must-haves — but leaves notes, start_date and conversation_id entirely unexplained in both places.

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 a specific verb and resource: matching CANOPY locations to a team's need, based on published inventory, returning fit ratings plus membership and price. It implicitly separates itself from listing/single-location tools and from booking tools ("Never picks or reserves a specific office"), though it never names a sibling 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?

It shows the conditions under which this tool applies (team size, area/landmark, workspace type, budget, must-haves) and gives a clear boundary — it does not book or reserve. It stops short of stating explicit alternatives (e.g. "for raw inventory use list_locations", "to actually book use book_tour").

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