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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool never books, never takes payment, does not know free times, and refuses dates the restaurant has reported closed. These behavioral constraints are valuable and consistent with the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the core purpose and then add user flow and limitations. Every sentence contributes new information and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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, user flow, and constraints well for a link-generation tool with no output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format (e.g., plain URL vs. structured result), but the opening 'Link to...' makes the intended output reasonably clear.

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 50%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented course and people parameters. It maps 'course, date and party size' to the preselected fields, but it does not explain the course enum values, the language parameter, or the people range beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 opens with a concrete statement: it returns a link to the restaurant's TableCheck booking page with course, date, and party size preselected. This is a specific verb-plus-resource and clearly differentiates the tool from the course-listing and recommendation siblings.

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?

It gives clear context that the tool is for generating a booking-page link where the guest chooses the time, and explicitly excludes booking, payment, and availability checks. It does not name the sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of full explicit routing.

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