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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description meaningfully adds context: it explains the CRM as the source of truth, the eventual consistency delay from Reclaim's webhook, the specific output fields, and the appropriate retry and honesty behavior. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through trigger conditions, data source, output, and follow-up behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned (pipeline stage and whether the paid first session is on the board) and how to act on both success and failure. The tool is simple enough, and this description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both email and context already described in the input schema. The context parameter has an unusually detailed description covering length, perspective, and content rules. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's coverage.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: it confirms from the CRM whether a booking landed, rather than trusting the visitor's claim. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like book_first_session or book_intro_call, which create bookings rather than verify them.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call it after handing over a booking link and the visitor says they have booked.' It also provides retry guidance and tells the agent how to respond if the booking still hasn't landed, which is strong practical usage direction.

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