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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says 'Books the customer into a REAL class' and mentions validation, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., permanent reservation, whether cancellations are possible), required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 bilingual but concise, clearly stating the action, target, validation logic, and prerequisite reference. Every sentence contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The description completes the schema context: it clarifies the class source (ver_negocio), validation rules, and the guest approach. Since there is no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it could benefit from mentioning error-handling specifics or confirmation. Overall, it is fairly complete for a booking action.

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%, with each parameter described. The tool description reinforces the source of the class name (ver_negocio) and that it's for guest bookings, but it doesn't add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states it books a customer into a REAL gym class as a guest, with name and phone, on a date. Distinguishes 'real class' from other tools and references ver_negocio for class lookup, making the intent 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 implies using ver_negocio first ('Classes are listed by ver_negocio') and clarifies this handles guest bookings, differentiating it from other reservation tools. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like reservar_habitacion.

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