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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact side effect (one text), the fact that nothing changes until the person picks, where the new state surfaces (booking_status), and the 10-minute no-duplicate-text window. This explains the idempotentHint and destructiveHint in operational terms an agent can act on.

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 scenario, then layers side effect, state behavior, and dedup window with no filler. The dense compound first sentence is slightly run-on but every clause earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained; the description covers trigger, side effects, and idempotency well. It leaves a minor gap in not routing the agent to cancel_booking or booking_status for adjacent intents, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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% with a single documented quote_id, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('move' a booked visit) and explains the two-step flow precisely, so an agent knows exactly what the tool initiates. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling (e.g., cancel_booking) as the alternative, so sibling differentiation relies on the reader inferring it.

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 opening clause gives a clear when-to-use condition ('For a booked visit the person wants at another time'), and the 10-minute dedup note implies a re-invocation context. No explicit when-not or named alternative is provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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