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

Annotations only cover safety flags; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the database write and the admin push notification that result from the call. It does not mention that repeat calls create duplicate requests (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or whether the venue can decline, but the core side effects are surfaced.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by effects and the one non-obvious parameter. 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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the trickiest parameter, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying what comes back or how a caller should handle repeated invocations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain split_type's default and the meaning of the 'personal' option ('German-style per-device splits'), which the schema cannot convey. It says nothing about note, table_id, or agent_session_id, leaving half the parameters to be inferred from names.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Ask the venue to bring the bill for a table') plus the internal effects (inserts a bill_requests row, fires an admin push). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, waiter_call, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when a table wants to settle. There is no statement of when not to use it, no routing to waiter_call or get_order_status for related intents, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing an active session or ordered items).

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