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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only nor idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags: the hold expires after 15 minutes without payment and the seats are automatically released. This meaningfully clarifies side effects.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action, the critical time-bound behavior, and the usage boundary. Nothing is wasted, and the most important operational details are front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and well-described parameters, the description covers the essential operational semantics: what the call does, what it returns, when it should be used, and what happens on expiry. It could mention retry/idempotency behavior, but that is already in the schema.

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 description coverage is high; every parameter has a description, including provenance hints like 'from get_availability'. The description itself adds little parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries that weight, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Reserves tickets' — and clearly identifies the output ('returns a booking_uuid'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like release_booking or get_booking_status by framing this as the reservation/holding action.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Only call this once the buyer has chosen') and an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('do not hold speculatively'). This is strong operational guidance that an agent can act on directly.

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