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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the API does not handle payments and that the page includes card payment and deposit options, which is valuable context. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., a URL string, a redirect) or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical safety warning about payment handling. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, optional parameter, and a major safety constraint. It does not explicitly state that the tool returns a link, but the tool name 'get_booking_link' and the description 'The page where...' together imply this. Overall, the context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema already fully documents service_id as an optional integer from list_services. The description adds only 'Optionally pass a service_id', which is redundant. It does not explain how service_id affects the returned booking page (e.g., pre-selecting a service). Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage, and the description does not elevate beyond it.

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?

The description identifies the tool as providing the Opus Lumière booking page, which is distinct from sibling tools like check_availability or list_services. However, it says 'The page where...' rather than explicitly stating 'Returns a booking link' or 'Gets a booking URL', making the verb implicit. The tool name helps resolve this ambiguity.

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 gives clear operational guidance: service_id is optional, and a strong warning that payment can never travel through this API, with an explicit instruction to never ask users for card details. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but this guidance effectively tells when not to use this tool (for payment processing) and when to pass a parameter.

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