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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the request goes to concierge staff who contact the shop directly, that it is asynchronous, and that the returned link should be shared with the user. This is valuable context beyond the schema and hints. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and condition, then proceeds through the workflow, the action (share the link), and the exclusions. Every sentence contributes: no filler, no repetition. It's long but efficiently organized—exactly what an agent needs.

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 (has output schema: true), so exhaustive return-value detail isn't required. The description covers the essential outcomes (e.g., the returned link) and error scenarios (shop_name_not_found). For a two-parameter tool with clear usage, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters already have descriptive self-documentation (e.g., 'Name of the shop the customer wants to book'). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does clarify that venue_name refers to a non-bookable shop, but that is usage context, not parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('submits a booking request') and a clear resource (a shop that is in the Timeplex catalog but cannot be booked online). It contrasts directly with siblings like start_booking and search_shops, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to pick for non-bookable shops.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (bookable=false or newly joined shop without registered menu) and when-not-to-use (shop_name_not_found or generic no-match). It even names the alternative workflow for bookable shops (get_shop_services -> search_availability -> start_booking). This is the gold standard for routing an agent.

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