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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that a continuation URL is returned, that a confirmation code may be included for automatic bookings, and that offeringId must never be shown to the user. These details help the agent understand the response flow and handle sensitive identifiers correctly. The annotations only indicate non-readonly, so this extra context is valuable.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening statement followed by three relevant bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's complexity (booking with different student types, internal IDs, and follow-up URLs), the description covers key aspects: the internal ID privacy rule, the continuation URL, and conditional confirmation codes. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. It could mention prerequisites like checking availability, but the sibling tools imply that workflow.

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 covers most parameter meanings (student details, startDateTime format, offeringId as internal record ID). The description adds crucial usage semantics by emphasizing that offeringId is internal and must never be displayed or mentioned to the user, and by clarifying that a continuation URL will be returned. This goes beyond schema descriptions and helps with correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: requesting to book a golf lesson for a specific coach's offering. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of booking a lesson distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_golf_coach_availability and search_golf_coaches.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when booking a lesson for a specific offering—and what to do after calling it (direct the user to the continuation URL). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it appropriately alongside the sibling tools.

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