Get Owner Statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it can fall back to a synthesized estimate when official data is missing, and it requires from+to for synthesis. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and is crucial for understanding the tool's dynamic behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically explains the fallback mechanism and the forcing flag. No redundant words; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 tool with 7 parameters, two modes, and a fallback behavior, the description covers the decision logic, parameter roles, and conditions adequately. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't oversell; it provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics: that from+to are needed for synthesis, and that property_ids and include_bookings are synthesizer-only. This helps an agent understand parameter relationships beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb and resource ('Return an owner statement') and differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_owner_statements by specifying the two modes: fetching an official statement or synthesizing one. This is specific and 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 description gives explicit conditions for when to use each behavior: prefer official statement, synthesize if none exists or unavailable, and force synthesis with synthesize=true. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the contextual conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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