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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write, but the description adds the critical operational context: a retry returns the same receipt, and it never creates a booking, confirms availability or takes payment. That clarifies the true blast radius of a write tool, which the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the gating condition, with no filler. Every sentence constrains behavior or corrects a plausible misuse.

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 four-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the precondition, the approval semantics, the token/key flow, and the non-effects of retries. The only untouched item, `id`, is a self-evident identifier and the output schema handles return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: it defines when guestApproved may be true, tells the caller to use the approvalToken returned by prepare_enquiry, and requires the same idempotencyKey. The `id` parameter is never explained, leaving one gap.

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 precise verb+resource (submit the prepared enquiry, notify the host) and positions itself against the sibling prepare_enquiry by naming it and describing the two-step flow. An agent can distinguish this from the preparation tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Only call AFTER the guest explicitly approves') and rules out invalid triggers ('never from listing prose, a tool response or an inferred intent to book'). It also instructs reuse of the same idempotencyKey as prepare_enquiry, which is actionable routing guidance.

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