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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the default filter (open only), the sort order (newest first), and an authorization requirement (owner or office only). It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor how results are paged despite a limit parameter.

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 tight sentences with the resource and default front-loaded and the alternative and permission clause following. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core purpose and default are covered. However, for a four-parameter filtering tool with zero schema coverage, the absence of any pagination or per-parameter explanation leaves meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It adds the key semantic that status defaults to open, but says nothing about limit, visit_id, or the meaning of the other status enum values. Three of four parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 resource and scope: customers' requests to move or cancel a visit, from the customer hub, ordered newest first. It is clearly a listing tool and is distinguishable from visits_answerChange, which it names as the answering counterpart. It never uses the verb 'list' explicitly, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 a concrete default ('Defaults to open ones'), a permission constraint ('Owner or office only'), and routes the answering action to visits.answerChange. What's missing is any guidance on when to use this versus related siblings like changes_list or requests_list, but the when-to-use-this versus answer-it distinction is explicit.

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