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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: creates a binding booking, reserves slots immediately, and requires authentication via API token. It does not detail error cases or persistence guarantees, but the core mutation action is well described.

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 concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential guidance: purpose, prerequisites, process, and sibling differentiation. No fluff or redundancy.

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 11-parameter creation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers core aspects: prerequisites, input sources, and usage flow. It lacks details on return values and error handling, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's descriptions are thorough (e.g., 'Raum-IDs aus list_rooms'), so the description only minimally repeats this information.

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 it creates a binding booking ('Erstellt eine VERBINDLICHE Buchung') with real conditions and immediate slot reservation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'request_booking' tool, which is for non-binding requests.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: after checking availability with 'check_availability' and pricing with 'quote_booking'. It also states the prerequisite of an API token and provides the alternative 'request_booking' when no token is available. Room and service IDs are sourced from sibling tools 'list_rooms' and 'list_services'.

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