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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the request is handled by human concierge staff who contact the shop directly and reply in the customer's language, so latency and no-immediate-confirmation are implied, plus a hard output constraint to embed the returned link_markdown as-is and never expose the raw URL. The only unaddressed trait is duplicate requests from repeated calls, which is minor against this detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the selection condition, then the action, then output handling, then exclusions and alternatives — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense, packing several sibling tool names and error keys into one paragraph, but each clause carries distinct operational information.

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?

Covers selection criteria, the human-in-the-loop behaviour, required output formatting, explicit exclusions, and the alternative path for bookable shops. With only two fully documented parameters and an output schema present, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly 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%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: lang is tied to the language the concierge replies to the customer in, not merely 'customer language', and venue_name is scoped to a shop already confirmed in the catalog rather than a free-text query.

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 and resource (submits a booking request for a shop that exists in the Timeplex catalog but is not bookable online) and names the exact signals that select it (bookable=false from search_shops, or a newly joined shop per get_shop_services). It is unambiguously distinguishable from search_shops, get_shop_services, search_availability and start_booking.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions, explicit when-not-to-use conditions (shop_name_not_found, generic searches with no matches, and what to tell the user instead), and a named alternative chain for bookable shops (get_shop_services -> search_availability -> start_booking). Routing is fully determined.

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