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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-binding nature and that the team verifies and confirms via email. However, it does not mention any return value, error handling, or potential side effects (e.g., whether a request record is stored).

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 two concise sentences in German, front-loading the key concept (non-binding request) and immediately providing actionable guidance. Every sentence contributes essential information with no 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?

Despite good coverage of prerequisites and purpose, the description omits what the function returns (e.g., a request ID, confirmation status). Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return value or success behavior. This gap reduces completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that room IDs come from list_rooms and service IDs from list_services, and that price should be obtained via quote_booking. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their schema definitions.

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 makes a non-binding booking request ('UNVERBINDLICHE Buchungsanfrage') and explicitly distinguishes it from creating a confirmed booking. It references sibling tools like check_availability and quote_booking, providing context on the overall workflow.

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 explicitly instructs to check availability with check_availability and quote the price from quote_booking before requesting, and directs to list_rooms and list_services for IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, leaving room for ambiguity.

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