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

Annotations only declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes much further, disclosing the AED 49.50 platform fee, the Stripe checkout opening, the deposit_url hand-off to the guest, and the WhatsApp alert plus relationship-manager confirmation. These are meaningful side effects an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and packs side effects, prerequisites, and routing guidance into three dense sentences with no filler. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries actionable information.

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?

Covers the purpose, the required inputs, the checkout hand-off, and the fallback placement path; the output schema handles the return shape (deposit_url). Minor gaps remain in explaining secondary optional fields like notes, occasion, and source.

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?

With 71% schema coverage the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds the table_id-vs-zone decision logic and the requirement that phone include a country code, which is not spelled out everywhere in the schema. It omits context for notes, occasion, source, and email.

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 ('Place a real table request with Dubai Table') and enumerates the concrete side effects: booking record, Stripe fee checkout, and WhatsApp alert to the relationship manager. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like check_availability and mutation tools like cancel_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?

Explicitly routes the agent to check_availability for an exact table_id, or a zone, or neither to let the relationship manager place the party. It also states the required guest name/mobile prerequisites, though it does not say when to prefer cancel_booking or booking_status instead of a fresh request.

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