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

Goes beyond the annotations by describing the asynchronous lifecycle: business approves one time (which books it and emails the customer) or counter-proposes a time the customer confirms with an emailed code. That is real behavioral context an agent needs. It omits that a pending request record is persisted and nothing is booked until approval, but with idempotentHint and destructiveHint already declared the remaining gap is modest.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the outcome branches and the status-check handoff following in logical order. Every sentence contributes information the agent cannot get elsewhere.

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 9-parameter, nested-object, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description explains the downstream flow but not what the call returns (a request identifier or status the agent would feed to get_request_status), nor does it mention agent_callback_url as an alternative to polling. Adequate but leaves a real gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% across 9 parameters with rich per-field descriptions (preferred_times ordering and 1-3 limit, customer_zip location resolution, idempotency_key retry semantics), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, which is the baseline-3 case.

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+resource ('Propose preferred times to a business') and characterizes the resource as a request the business reviews, which implicitly distinguishes it from the instant-booking siblings. It never names request_booking or request_callback directly, so the contrast is inferential rather than explicit.

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 gives a follow-up route ('Check status with get_request_status') but no selection guidance: it does not say when to choose proposal flow over request_booking or request_callback, nor any prerequisite such as obtaining service_id from get_availability. Usage is implied by the verb, not stated.

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