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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it books nothing, then adds genuinely new behavioral context: a short-lived URL, a ~ten-minute hold that begins only when the guest opens the link, and nothing held beforehand. This is exactly the operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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 most important clarification (this does not book) before detailing the URL mechanism and the hold. Two tight paragraphs, though the second paragraph's 'tenant' guidance repeats the do-not-hold point slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (a short-lived url) and the agent's obligation to hand it over promptly. For a three-required-param, non-destructive tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so venue, partySize, and slotToken are already fully documented including the signing/expiry semantics of slotToken. The description only loosely ties the URL to 'that party size and that exact sitting', adding no meaning beyond the schema, 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 outcome (turn a find_table_times slot into a tappable booking link) and immediately distinguishes it from what an agent might assume by clarifying it does NOT book anything. This makes it easily separable from its sibling book_appointment.

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 names the upstream source (a time from find_table_times) and the downstream consumer (the guest, who completes booking themselves), giving clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling book_appointment, which would be the natural alternative an agent might consider.

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