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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the created agenda is public and gains a URL, and that it links to a provider/service. However, it does not mention auth requirements, failure modes, validation rules, or side effects like slug uniqueness.

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 four focused sentences: what it creates, how it links, its public URL, and when to create it. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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?

With 19 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly. It omits return value shape, defaults for flags like isPublic, and the meaning of many configurable enums and options.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for 19 parameters. It only indirectly explains orgSlug and slug through the URL pattern /{orgSlug}/agenda/{slug}. Most parameters like assignmentStrategy, bookingFlowOrder, or serviceSelectionMode are left unexplained.

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 what the tool does: creates a public agenda, a shareable booking page, and links it to a provider and/or service. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agendas_update and agendas_delete by focusing on creation and the resulting public 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?

It explicitly says to create this after services and availability are configured, giving a clear prerequisite context. It also explains the consequence of not having a public agenda (clients can only be booked via API or dashboard), which helps agents decide when 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.