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

The description discloses non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: idempotency per job, the requirement for a name-as-signature approval, and the storage of a quote snapshot. This adds real context about state and side effects that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by essential behavioral constraints and scope. The parenthetical is dense but earns its place by clarifying the signature approval mechanism.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, idempotency, and scope, which is solid for a write action. However, with no output schema, it does not indicate what a successful response looks like, and it does not clarify the distinction from closely related sibling tools.

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 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, including approve and accept_terms semantics. The description reinforces the approve and accept_terms conditions but adds little new meaning and does not clarify the undocumented email and phone parameters.

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 that the tool requests a booking, using a specific verb and resource. It adds meaningful constraints like idempotency and approval requirements, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as submit_job or approve_inventory.

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 communicates when the tool is appropriate by stating prerequisites: approve must be true, and accept_terms is needed when the mover has terms. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use this tool, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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