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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the tool's output (steps and App link), where booking actions occur (in the Beaubi App), and its limitation (cannot book on behalf). This is more than minimal disclosure, though it could add details like whether any input is needed.

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 short sentences, front-loading the return value and then stating the key limitation. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 informational tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, where the user must go for booking actions, and what the tool cannot do. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description covers the only parameter fully: '使用者想預約的服務名稱，僅用於說明', indicating it is informational only. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb '回傳' (returns) and a clear resource '預約步驟與 App 連結' (booking steps and App link). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from being a booking tool by stating '本工具不能代為預約', which separates it from any sibling that might perform actions.

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 clearly conveys this tool is for retrieving booking instructions and the App link, not for performing bookings. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the limitation '不能代為預約' gives the agent enough context to know when not to use this tool.

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