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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: external provider pages are links only, and Advocate does not sync their availability or make bookings there. This is important, non-obvious behavioral context that helps an agent interpret results safely. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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?

Three sentences, all purposeful: the core function, the usage context, and the critical behavioral caveat. The information is front-loaded and no words are wasted. This is an ideal length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the single parameter, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to use the tool correctly. It explains the edge case of external provider pages and clarifies the limitations around availability syncing and booking, so an agent can act appropriately on the result.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'slug' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description's business-level context indirectly reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the public booking route for a business.' It also clarifies what the tool distinguishes among external provider pages, active configured calendars using the Advocate booking flow, and businesses without a supported booking destination. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_availability or get_payment_handoff_url.

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 says 'Use this before helping a user book an appointment,' giving a precise when-to-use context. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context makes the intended placement in the workflow clear.

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