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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that the output is a link rather than a confirmed booking, that Monday closure and out-of-hours times are validated, and that 11+ parties cannot use online booking. It leaves ambiguous whether a Monday date raises an error or returns a flagged link, which is the one gap for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the crucial guest-completes-the-booking caveat. Nothing is redundant.

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 3-param, fully documented schema with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: inputs, guest-size limits, closure rules, and the implicit return (a deep link). Only the error-versus-flag behavior for closed days is left unclear.

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% and all three parameters document their own format (YYYY-MM-DD, 24h HH:MM, party size). The description adds only the business rule already mirrored in the party_size schema description, so it lands at the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Build a Toast Tables booking deep link' for date/time/party size. The booking-versus-ordering distinction is inherently clear against get_order_link, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen it.

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?

Gives concrete routing rules: online booking works for 1-10 guests, 11+ must call, and Monday closure is flagged. It also clarifies a key boundary — 'The guest completes the booking at the link' — so the agent knows this tool does not reserve a table itself. No explicit mention of when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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