suggest_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by clarifying this is advisory/selection output rather than an availability verification, but it says nothing about what a 'suggestion' contains, whether results are deterministic, or how policyVersion/catalogue versioning affects output.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the negative clarification is attached efficiently to the main clause. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a deeply nested required payload, but no sentence is wasted.

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 complex, nested-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits what the returned suggestion looks like, whether catalogVersion is mandatory for valid results, and any prerequisite workflow. The annotations cover only the read-only/idempotent profile, so this one sentence does not carry the burden the tool's complexity demands.

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?

None of the three top-level parameters (kind, plan, catalogVersion) are mentioned in the description, and top-level schema description coverage is effectively 0% — only deep nested fields carry their own descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining the plan payload shape or the meaning of catalogVersion, leaving the agent to mine the nested schema.

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 ('suggest') and resource ('room/program selection for the ordinary group tariff'), which is concrete and matches the const 'group' kind and policyVersion in the schema. It does not name a specific sibling it competes with, so an agent must still infer its place among calculate_quote/get_calendar, but the purpose itself 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?

The clause 'not an availability check' is a useful negative signal that steers the agent away from treating this as a calendar/availability query, which implies when to use it. However, no positive alternative or prerequisite is named (e.g., 'use calculate_quote for pricing' or 'requires a prior get_catalog call'), so usage is only implied.

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