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

Beyond the annotations' idempotent/destructive hints, it discloses transactional atomicity ('a bad entry changes nothing'), upsert-by-name semantics including reactivation of inactive entries, that omitted items are untouched, and the return payload (setup plus bookingPage.problems). This is substantial behavioral context the structured fields do not provide.

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?

Five dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. It is on the long side, but each sentence carries distinct operational information (atomicity, optionality, matching rules, referential naming, return value).

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 5-parameter nested composite tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, atomicity, upsert semantics, and return shape well. It omits authorization requirements and does not warn which inputs can destroy data despite destructiveHint=true (e.g. an empty windows list closing a day), and does not address an unknown locationId.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry more weight. It usefully explains name-based matching and the 'doors refer to types by name, so you don't need ids' relationship, plus omission semantics for types and hours, but says nothing about the settings sub-fields (assignDoors, doorCapacity, slotsPerHour, dwellTrackingEnabled, appointmentApprovalRequired) or the type fields like buffers and minimumNoticeMinutes.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Set up') plus the resource and enumerates the exact scope: scheduling settings, weekly hours, appointment types, and doors. The phrase 'in one call' distinguishes it from the sibling singletons (update_location_settings, set_weekly_hours, create_appointment_type, create_door) without the agent needing to open any 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?

'Set up a facility in one call' combined with 'Every part is optional' and 'repeating the call is safe' tells the agent when this composite tool is the right choice over the granular siblings. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of the top band.

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