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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the hold period, the shorter hold and instant-payment rule for near-term events, the fact that the reservation becomes binding only after payment, and the no-invented-personal-data rule.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisites are clearly numbered. It is somewhat long, especially the example confirmation wording and the bilingual closing sentence, but the length is largely justified by the legal and voice-booking constraints.

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 complex 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation context: prerequisites, consent, hold behavior, payment binding, date constraints, and personal-data handling. It does not describe the return value or failure behavior, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 high at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds useful meaning for key fields: terms_accepted is gated on explicit guest consent, email is the guest's own address for the payment link, and dates must be ISO within the event window.

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: reserve a pitch, e-mail the payment link, and complete the booking by voice. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings because it names get_availability as a prerequisite and describes the reservation action itself.

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?

Gives explicit ONLY-call-after conditions: get_availability must show the category is free, the guest must be told the total price and asked one confirmation question, and the guest must explicitly agree and provide name and e-mail. It also ties terms_accepted to that explicit consent, leaving little to inference.

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