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

Annotations declare the write/open-world profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior: the table is held immediately and firmly, nothing needs confirming, no payment is required, and it returns a clear error when the rooftop is closed, full, or past dinner service. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but adds solid context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then behavioral guarantees, then failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden; it describes error cases well but says nothing about the success response shape (e.g., confirmation reference). Adequate but leaves a gap for a write tool.

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 description coverage the schema carries most of the load, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., clarifying the time format or max party size). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the moderately high coverage.

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 ('Réserve une table au Rooftop des Voiles'), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_booking_session or get_rooftop_availability, so it falls just short of the top band.

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 description explains the reservation's semantics (immediate hold, no payment, no confirmation) but never states when to choose this tool over the read-oriented siblings such as get_rooftop_availability or create_booking_session, nor any prerequisite like checking availability first. Usage must be inferred.

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