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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior: strict input-order preservation and the fact that Canopy never ranks, filters or recommends. It does not say anything about what happens when a business cannot be matched or about failure modes.

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 scoping and no-ranking constraint is well front-loaded, but the ordering guarantee is stated twice ('Results come back in exactly the order you sent them' and 'Results are returned in the same order as the input'), which is pure redundancy. The description would be tighter with that duplication removed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does need to explain returns; it names booking_mode but never describes the possible values or how to read a negative result. For a single-parameter, open-world lookup tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about unmatchable businesses.

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%, including the business_name fallback note about adding address when there is no phone or website, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's '(name plus phone, website or address)' restates the identifying fields but adds no new constraints such as batching or duplicate-handling semantics beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it takes businesses you already found and reports which can be booked through Canopy and via which booking_mode. The scope is narrow and distinguishable from siblings like resolve_business or request_booking.

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 phrase 'Given businesses you already found for the user' implies this is a post-discovery step and not a search tool, which is useful context. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. resolve_business) or states when not to use this tool, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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