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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool is a pure formatter with no network call and no task creation, aligning with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It also clarifies the user-facing flow.

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 slightly long but every sentence is relevant and adds clarity. It front-loads the main purpose and includes important caveats. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use the result, and the constraints (no server-side creation). The annotations further support the description.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by indicating the source of each slug (from specific tools) and embedding them in the URL format, though it doesn't add much beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool builds a deep-link for task creation prefilled with professional and service. It distinguishes itself by specifying it is a pure formatter that makes no network call and creates no task, setting it apart from other tools that might perform actions.

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 provides context that the URL should be surfaced to the user to complete the booking on Muovi, as agents cannot create tasks server-side. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for proper use.

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