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

Annotations already establish that this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that user consent is required and frames the action as a real-world team behavior, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before mentioning the callback conditions. Every sentence contributes useful information and none of it simply echoes annotations or schema.

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 callback request with two string parameters and no output schema, the description provides the needed context: what happens, when to use it, and what is required. It doesn't detail potential complications like callback timing or follow-up behavior, but those aren't needed for selecting the tool.

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 descriptions are entirely absent, so the tool description must compensate. It references the user's name and phone number, which partially clarifies the schema's `name` and `phone` fields, but it doesn't communicate format or additional constraints for the phone value.

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's action: asking the Cuvo team to phone the user back. It also gives two concrete circumstances for using it, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools.

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 states when to use the tool: when live booking is unavailable or when the user prefers a callback. It also mentions the necessary precondition of user consent, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools as alternatives.

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