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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds real value beyond them: it creates a record in the studio's system, triggers a confirmation email, and promises a personal proposal within 24 hours. It does not address the idempotentHint=true annotation (duplicate-call behavior), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scoping rule before the outcome and the precondition. The long parenthetical enumeration of service types is dense but earns its place as disambiguation against the booking siblings.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, the side effects (system record, email, 24h proposal), and the required user confirmation. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 90%, with enum values and per-field descriptions already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level syntax, format, or default guidance beyond what the structured data provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Sends a quote request to the studio') and immediately scopes it to 'anything not bookable directly', enumerating the covered service categories. An agent can distinguish it from request_studio_booking (direct bookings) and buy_gift_voucher without opening any schema.

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 states the routing condition ('anything not bookable directly') and a hard prerequisite ('Only call after the user confirms the details and agrees to be contacted'). It does not name the sibling to use instead for directly bookable items, leaving that inference implicit.

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