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

With no annotations available, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does so richly: it discloses side effects (creates pending SessionRequest, does not move session), conditions (gated by org flag, rate-limited per client/session), and data semantics (records client as proposer, future ISO datetime within ~3 months). These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 dense yet well-structured: purpose first, key constraint second, behavioral gating/rate-limit third, and tracking pointer last. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description gives a complete enough picture for selecting and invoking the tool. The only minor gap is no mention of response shape or explicit error conditions, but the side effects and constraints are thoroughly covered.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does well for requestedScheduledAt (ISO datetime, future, within ~3 months) and implies sessionId/orgSlug by context, but it does not explain optional reason or apiKey. Partial compensation for a 0%-coverage schema merits a mid-range score.

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 action ('Propose a new time for a session on behalf of the client') and clearly distinguishes the tool from booking_reschedule by stating it 'does NOT move the session' and creates a pending SessionRequest resolved via booking_resolve_request. This goes beyond a vague restatement of the name.

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 frames when to use the tool (opening the bilateral coordination loop) and points to the org-side resolution path and tracking tool (booking_list_requests). It also implies the alternative of a direct move via booking_reschedule by emphasizing the pending nature.

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