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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects: creates a calendar event with Meet link unless Phone Call, registers the meeting, and sends emails. It also adds the consent requirement. It does not cover failure modes or reversibility, but the disclosed behaviors are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side effects, then prerequisites and consent. Each sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or filler, making it concise and well-structured.

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 (9 parameters, 5 required) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the process side effects and prerequisites. It does not describe return values, but with schema covering parameters and the description covering behavior, it is sufficiently complete for correct selection and 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: the mode affects whether a Meet link is created, and time must be from get-meeting-slots (already in schema, but reinforced). This extra behavioral nuance about mode is not in the schema, slightly increasing the value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Book' with a clear resource 'consultation with the Printing Labs team' and lists concrete outcomes (Google Calendar event, registration, emails). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, especially get-meeting-slots, by describing the booking action and its side effects.

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 explicit prerequisites: the time must come from get-meeting-slots, and the agent must have user consent and real contact details. It clarifies the sequential relationship with get-meeting-slots. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, 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.