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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent), it discloses real-world side effects the annotations cannot express: a real lead is sent to a specific person, the result is only a REQUEST, and the locksmith must confirm time, price and ETA. It even documents the return shape (reference id HL-####) with no output schema present.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information: the purpose, the gating condition, the required contact data, the time format, the request-vs-appointment caveat, and the return id. No filler or redundancy.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, it covers the critical unknowns: it writes a real lead, it is not a confirmed appointment, and it returns a reference id. The remaining gap is that it never tells the agent where locksmith_id comes from (presumably search_locksmiths) or what the other optional fields mean.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine meaning for three of them ('phone (preferred) or email' contact rule, and a format example for preferred_time), but never mentions the two REQUIRED parameters (name, locksmith_id) nor zip, details, service, or urgency, so a large part of the schema stays opaque.

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 ('Create a booking request with a specific locksmith') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling request_quote by characterizing itself as 'firmer'. An agent can route between the two without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('ONLY call when the user wants to book a job'), states the consequence of misusing it ('it sends a real request'), and positions it relative to the sibling request_quote. Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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