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 authentication requirement (Knox Bearer API key, unauthenticated rejected), the exact return bundle (three components), and disclaimers about adjudication, acceptance, payment, and representation. This goes well beyond the schema and paints a complete behavioral picture.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return contents, disclaimers, and auth. It is front-loaded with the purpose. It could be improved with bullet points or line breaks, but overall it is efficient and appropriately sized for the 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: return shape, auth requirements, and critical disclaimers. It does not explain the C2PA envelope in depth, but that is abstract and the schema covers parameters. The lack of an explicit usage disclaimer against siblings is a minor gap, but the description is largely complete.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what appears in the schema (e.g., hashing of contactEmail is already in the schema). Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate–the description does not need to compensate.

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 the specific action ('Anchor a booking request') with a clear resource (represented Bonis Concierge agent) and immediately lists what the tool returns. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (list_represented_agents and verify_booking) by focusing on creating an anchored request, not listing or verifying.

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 usage is implied: use this to anchor a booking request. However, the description never explicitly mentions when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusionary guidance. The agent has to infer the distinction from the purpose, so it's adequate but not fully explicit.

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